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

[the truth]

If we cant figure out what causes or supports the end problems how are we gonna be able to handle any of this?
Just my take on it. Ignoring what is allowing this in the first is our failure. Bandaids are not going to accomplish anything. Portland and seattle learnt this the hard way and nothing is going to correct it

How is that decriminalization of small quantities doing in Portland?
I'm sure that ODs have dropped substantially? /S

And as for BC, just what will our adventurous teenagers want to try next? Hmm, illicit drugs? No longer illegal.

there was just a story on the news last week saying the drug problem is worse than ever in portland

[rustled]

I’m guessing courthouse revolving door must be needing far to much oiling.

Why does this sound like more enabling, instead of actual helping.

Easier to begin using, continue to use, and become addicted.

Most likely outcome: growing the number of folk who begin using, continue to use, and become addicted.

[my5cents]

Nope. The first problem is people using drugs. Why and how is it becoming such a pandemic period. The deaths are happening cause it exists.

Yes there is lots of drug use, but what is killing drug addicts is the toxicity of the drugs not the number of addicts.

I hope if I ever go to the hospital in bad shape you're not doing triage.

Fact: People are dying because the supply of illicit drugs is poisonous.

To save them, you feel the first step is solving the drug addiction problem.

Sorta like saying that swimming without proper swimming lessons is causing drowning, so the solution for someone who is drowning is to teach them to swim. No, they are already drowning, the first thing you do is save them from drowning, THEN, get them in swimming lessons.

We have toxic drugs on the street, it is presently killing people. Something has to be done about the toxic drugs, yes at the same time some how encourage addicts to stop using.

For sure the solution to toxic drugs killing addicts ISN'T make the toxic drugs legal. What moron thought that up ?

Talk about a business plan -
• Selling a product that causes hopeless addiction (good for business)
• Selling a product that is lethal and kills your customers (bad for business)
But help is on the way, a government with it's head up it's *bleep* that thinks decriminalization will help the problem, when IMO all it will do is introduce the young to try the decriminalized substance, so up goes the customer base.

[bob vernon]

Selling addictive drugs only enslaves people to their dealers. Trafficking in addictive drugs should receive the death penalty. Enslaving is just so evil. But I'd like to see the offer of a long prison sentence in exchange for testimony against dealers higher up the chain.

[liisgo]

Nope. The first problem is people using drugs. Why and how is it becoming such a pandemic period. The deaths are happening cause it exists.

Yes there is lots of drug use, but what is killing drug addicts is the toxicity of the drugs not the number of addicts.

I hope if I ever go to the hospital in bad shape you're not doing triage.

Fact: People are dying because the supply of illicit drugs is poisonous.

To save them, you feel the first step is solving the drug addiction problem.

Sorta like saying that swimming without proper swimming lessons is causing drowning, so the solution for someone who is drowning is to teach them to swim. No, they are already drowning, the first thing you do is save them from drowning, THEN, get them in swimming lessons.

We have toxic drugs on the street, it is presently killing people. Something has to be done about the toxic drugs, yes at the same time some how encourage addicts to stop using.

For sure the solution to toxic drugs killing addicts ISN'T make the toxic drugs legal. What idiot thought that up ?

Talk about a business plan -
• Selling a product that causes hopeless addiction (good for business)
• Selling a product that is lethal and kills your customers (bad for business)
But help is on the way, a government with it's head up it's *bleep* that thinks decriminalization will help the problem, when IMO all it will do is introduce the young to try the decriminalized substance, so up goes the customer base.

Explain why it hasn't worked in seattle and portland then. The safe drugs are sold to our future drug addicts for a much heavier price, then the exact same go right back and purchase the more desirable drugs sold from the dangerous sources.
Guess what happened in seattle when they experimented with a free safe product. The problem of addicted grew so fast now nothing can even begin to handle the numbers.
Before you need triage lets hope the incidents is saved from happening in the first place instead of more ignorance towards the problem that causes it.

[rustled]

For sure the solution to toxic drugs killing addicts ISN'T make the toxic drugs legal. What idiot thought that up ?

Talk about a business plan -
• Selling a product that causes hopeless addiction (good for business)
• Selling a product that is lethal and kills your customers (bad for business)
But help is on the way, a government with it's head up it's *bleep* that thinks decriminalization will help the problem, when IMO all it will do is introduce the young to try the decriminalized substance, so up goes the customer base.

Making the drug supply "safer" also seems more likely to me to enlarge the customer base. Some things can't really be made "safe" enough for the masses.

[spooker]

For sure the solution to toxic drugs killing addicts ISN'T make the toxic drugs legal. What idiot thought that up ?

Talk about a business plan -
• Selling a product that causes hopeless addiction (good for business)
• Selling a product that is lethal and kills your customers (bad for business)
But help is on the way, a government with it's head up it's *bleep* that thinks decriminalization will help the problem, when IMO all it will do is introduce the young to try the decriminalized substance, so up goes the customer base.

Making the drug supply "safer" also seems more likely to me to enlarge the customer base. Some things can't really be made "safe" enough for the masses.

And if we keep burying our heads in the sand by saying it's illegal, stopping all conversation, then we will continue to let people walk into the trap of drug addiction without fail as we have over the last 40 years ... the whole "just say no" tried to simplify the issue where it was black/white and had no allowance for the complexity which is human society ...

Safe-supply is about making sure that those who've gotten to the point where they have no choice about their dependence stay alive so their is a chance at their accepting services, though I know some on this forum have expressed the idea that we shouldn't care ...

Decriminalizing is about getting our focus where enforcement can have the most effect ...

And yes, all of that needs to be accompanied by more recovery services (beds) being available ...

People want black/white ... it's either get it together or watch more people die ...

[rustled]

Making the drug supply "safer" also seems more likely to me to enlarge the customer base. Some things can't really be made "safe" enough for the masses.

And if we keep burying our heads in the sand by saying it's illegal, stopping all conversation,

No one's suggesting that, though. We're questioning a public policy with the potential for worse outcomes.

People want black/white ... it's either get it together or watch more people die ...

It's interesting to see the black/white in this thread - e.g. the suggestion that unless we go along with de-criminalization of small-scale possession, we're "ok with watching more people die".

More people dying from drug use is certainly part of the problem drug use and addictions pose for a compassionate society.

How drug use and addictions affect all of society is as significant part of the problem, too. We can all care about the entire problem, and how it affects all of society.

We should all care that our society is undergoing significant breakdown during this decades-long press for greater compassion and more harm reduction strategies "because it's the right thing to do" with no substantive evidence to show these strategies are leading to better outcomes for addicts, for drug users, or for society.

Keeping someone alive to o.d. another day - or later the same day - or both - is NOT the better outcome most folk had in mind when we supported safe injection sites. The objective of making it significantly easier for addicts to seek treatment, reducing the harms done to the individual and to society has NOT been met.

Our governments have been unwilling or unable to fund adequate treatment facilities to meet the demand from the addicts we currently have.

Realistically, then, can we afford to fund enough treatment programs and centers if we remove even more restrictions and stigmas and risks - leading to further growth in the client base?

[YzzzR1]

It's interesting to see the black/white in this thread - e.g. the suggestion that unless we go along with de-criminalization of small-scale possession, we're "ok with watching more people die".

More people dying from drug use is certainly part of the problem drug use and addictions pose for a compassionate society.

How drug use and addictions affect all of society is as significant part of the problem, too. We can all care about the entire problem, and how it affects all of society.

We should all care that our society is undergoing significant breakdown during this decades-long press for greater compassion and more harm reduction strategies "because it's the right thing to do" with no substantive evidence to show these strategies are leading to better outcomes for addicts, for drug users, or for society.

Keeping someone alive to o.d. another day - or later the same day - or both - is NOT the better outcome most folk had in mind when we supported safe injection sites. The objective of making it significantly easier for addicts to seek treatment, reducing the harms done to the individual and to society has NOT been met.

Our governments have been unwilling or unable to fund adequate treatment facilities to meet the demand from the addicts we currently have.

Realistically, then, can we afford to fund enough treatment programs and centers if we remove even more restrictions and stigmas and risks - leading to further growth in the client base?

It all boils down to ones opinion if these lives are worth saving from their self inflicted harm or not. I don't buy the fact that MOST their mentally illnesses started before the addiction started. I think for the most part, the mental illness is a product of taking the drugs.

[rustled]

It all boils down to ones opinion if these lives are worth saving from their self inflicted harm or not.

Most people seem to support strategies that prevent an individual from dying of overdose. Not over and over again, though - and not over and over again when the individual's drug use or addiction becomes the impetus for behaviours that have a negative impact our community.

Public policies which result in growing the number of individuals negatively impacting our communities is the antithesis of a compassionate society. Their cumulative activities have already reached a tipping point in many of our communities: people no longer feel safe.

I don't buy the fact that MOST their mentally illnesses started before the addiction started. I think for the most part, the mental illness is a product of taking the drugs.

This seems likely. And it seems there's no real interest from those promoting "harm reduction strategies" in finding out!

IMO, by bringing in additional policies likely to grow the client base without first having treatment in place to meet even the comparatively small demand of the addicts actually seeking treatment, we are putting the cart before the horse.

[spooker]

And if we keep burying our heads in the sand by saying it's illegal, stopping all conversation,

No one's suggesting that, though. We're questioning a public policy with the potential for worse outcomes.

People are saying that decriminalization will result in a bad ending, so they want the status quo but more enforcement ... seems like that is just ignoring the fact that the war on drugs has been a losing endeavour for decades ...

People want black/white ... it's either get it together or watch more people die ...

It's interesting to see the black/white in this thread - e.g. the suggestion that unless we go along with de-criminalization of small-scale possession, we're "ok with watching more people die".

More people dying from drug use is certainly part of the problem drug use and addictions pose for a compassionate society.

How drug use and addictions affect all of society is as significant part of the problem, too. We can all care about the entire problem, and how it affects all of society.

We should all care that our society is undergoing significant breakdown during this decades-long press for greater compassion and more harm reduction strategies "because it's the right thing to do" with no substantive evidence to show these strategies are leading to better outcomes for addicts, for drug users, or for society.

Keeping someone alive to o.d. another day - or later the same day - or both - is NOT the better outcome most folk had in mind when we supported safe injection sites. The objective of making it significantly easier for addicts to seek treatment, reducing the harms done to the individual and to society has NOT been met.

Our governments have been unwilling or unable to fund adequate treatment facilities to meet the demand from the addicts we currently have.

Realistically, then, can we afford to fund enough treatment programs and centers if we remove even more restrictions and stigmas and risks - leading to further growth in the client base?

As long as we have to continue increasing funding for enforcement can we also find more money to fund the treatment programs?

While over the last couple of decades we've been able to start doing things with more compassion they've been quite limited since the will to make bigger changes doesn't exist, blaming the breakdown of society on this is really a stretch ... we're just focussing more on ourselves individually and what we have then looking at our society as a whole and start fixing it from the bottom up ...

Trying to tie safe-supply and decriminalization to "growing the base of users" seems more like a red-herring, unlikely but sounding reasonable enough that people could nod along with it ...

[rustled]

No one's suggesting that, though. We're questioning a public policy with the potential for worse outcomes.

People are saying that decriminalization will result in a bad ending, so they want the status quo but more enforcement ...

I'm not "people", and I've never said I "want the status quo but more enforcement". Quoting me to argue against what you hear other people are saying smacks of bickering. It genuinely seems to me the objective of some here is solely to take sides and bicker.

Trying to tie safe-supply and decriminalization to "growing the base of users" seems more like a red-herring, unlikely but sounding reasonable enough that people could nod along with it ...

I'm certainly NOT suggesting anyone should "nod along" with anything - not ever. That's a "taking sides" tactic. Dismissing the very real potential for worse outcomes as a "red herring" is NOT discussing, it's another "taking sides" tactic. Taking sides is dandy if the objective is to score points in a debate or to argue or bicker, but not particularly useful if our objective is to address problems.

This policy - LIKE EVERY POLICY - has the potential for worse outcomes. As responsible citizens in a democracy, it's important for us to consider this policy's potential for worse outcomes, and discuss that potential.

[GordonH]

It's interesting to see the black/white in this thread - e.g. the suggestion that unless we go along with de-criminalization of small-scale possession, we're "ok with watching more people die".

More people dying from drug use is certainly part of the problem drug use and addictions pose for a compassionate society.

How drug use and addictions affect all of society is as significant part of the problem, too. We can all care about the entire problem, and how it affects all of society.

We should all care that our society is undergoing significant breakdown during this decades-long press for greater compassion and more harm reduction strategies "because it's the right thing to do" with no substantive evidence to show these strategies are leading to better outcomes for addicts, for drug users, or for society.

Keeping someone alive to o.d. another day - or later the same day - or both - is NOT the better outcome most folk had in mind when we supported safe injection sites. The objective of making it significantly easier for addicts to seek treatment, reducing the harms done to the individual and to society has NOT been met.

Our governments have been unwilling or unable to fund adequate treatment facilities to meet the demand from the addicts we currently have.

Realistically, then, can we afford to fund enough treatment programs and centers if we remove even more restrictions and stigmas and risks - leading to further growth in the client base?

It all boils down to ones opinion if these lives are worth saving from their self inflicted harm or not. I don't buy the fact that MOST their mentally illnesses started before the addiction started. I think for the most part, the mental illness is a product of taking the drugs.

Some probably are a result of addiction, since the province makes it extremely difficult to get a diagnosis for mental illness. I suspect many mentally ill people are on the streets self medicating with whatever they can get a hold of.
These people need to be placed into a facility for proper diagnosis and treatment, unlike facilities of the past with the horror stories. Strong protection from all of that needs to be at forefront.

Province shutdown those facilities and sent mental ill onto the streets, decades later society is reaping the fallout for that tax savings which definitely huge failure.

Then there are those who became addicted via prescribed medication aka opioid based painkillers. This people need treatment facilities to kick the habit.

Funds needed for these things impo would be money well spent, instead of the current actions being done or planning on being done. Which is just a band-aid at best or worst.

This is my 2 cents on the issues.

[spooker]

People are saying that decriminalization will result in a bad ending, so they want the status quo but more enforcement ...

I'm not "people", and I've never said I "want the status quo but more enforcement". Quoting me to argue against what you hear other people are saying smacks of bickering. It genuinely seems to me the objective of some here is solely to take sides and bicker.

The post I was responding to was speaking for the group, i.e. "no one," so I was replying back to the group, nothing personal in that I thought ...

Trying to tie safe-supply and decriminalization to "growing the base of users" seems more like a red-herring, unlikely but sounding reasonable enough that people could nod along with it ...

I'm certainly NOT suggesting anyone should "nod along" with anything - not ever. That's a "taking sides" tactic. Dismissing the very real potential for worse outcomes as a "red herring" is NOT discussing, it's another "taking sides" tactic. Taking sides is dandy if the objective is to score points in a debate or to argue or bicker, but not particularly useful if our objective is to address problems.

Again, I feel that my generalizations are being taken personally and they are not meant to be that ... most of the argument that decriminalization increases the users is a correlation not a causation link ... the majority of people are more moderate and will take a centrist course through topics that generally want to generate an either/or point of view, but we end up trading away benefits to placate enough to get something that is "better than nothing" ...

This policy - LIKE EVERY POLICY - has the potential for worse outcomes. As responsible citizens in a democracy, it's important for us to consider this policy's potential for worse outcomes, and discuss that potential.

And our current policy of enforcement and citation seems to be having worse and worse outcomes ... guarantees don't exist in this life as far I know ... when do we stop discussing things and just see if we can do a good job of trying to fix cracks that would lead to worse outcomes?

We all seem to want more services, let's do that ... we want more enforcement at the dealer level, sure ... there's plenty that we agree on ...

[rustled]

I'm not "people", and I've never said I "want the status quo but more enforcement". Quoting me to argue against what you hear other people are saying smacks of bickering. It genuinely seems to me the objective of some here is solely to take sides and bicker.

The post I was responding to was speaking for the group, i.e. "no one," so I was replying back to the group, nothing personal in that I thought ...
Then kindly quote the person you ARE arguing with, and leave me out of it.