BC Political Discussion: Election 2024 & 43rd Parliament

[casper]

Originally Posted by Changing City

This BC Government webpage might help.

It explains what is exempted, and what isn't, and the circumstances that might lead to police enforcement.

Here's the initial paragraphs:

Health Canada granted the province of B.C. a three-year exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize people who use drugs, which came into effect January 31, 2023.

Under the exemption, possessing small amounts of certain illicit drugs for personal use in specific locations is allowed.

In these locations, adults 18 and older will not be arrested, charged or have drugs seized for possessing small amounts of certain illicit drugs for personal use. Instead, people will be offered health information and referred to treatment and supports if requested.

Locations:

Private residences
Places unhoused individuals are legally sheltering (indoor and outdoor locations)
Overdose prevention, drug checking and supervised consumption sites
Places that provide out-patient addiction services like rapid access addiction clinics
Illicit drugs covered under the exemption (up to 2.5 grams combined):

Opioids (such as heroin, morphine and fentanyl)
Crack and powder cocaine 
Methamphetamine (meth)
MDMA (ecstasy)

I think this all comes down to a simple question. If someone who is addicted to drugs and consuming the product in their home or a safe injection site a police or public health issue?

It clearly is a problem. I don't think the police (and courts) are going to be better positioned to deal with that problem than the public health authorities.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by casper

I think this all comes down to a simple question. If someone who is addicted to drugs and consuming the product in their home or a safe injection site a police or public health issue?

It clearly is a problem. I don't think the police (and courts) are going to be better positioned to deal with that problem than the public health authorities.

Yes, I just quoted the part that responded to another post. But the page starts with the statement "Addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one. Decriminalizing people who use drugs is one of the many actions B.C. is taking to respond to the toxic drug crisis that is killing our loved ones, so people live to get the care they need – from prevention and harm reduction to treatment and recovery."

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Again, I have not seen language from the feds or province that consumption is now legal and no longer punishable by local law enforcement, or the RCMP.

At this point you must be having a laugh. The preceding back and forth could not be any clearer: the Province and the Federal Government had a three-year moratorium on federal laws relating consumption/possession of up to 2.5 grams of all hard drugs.

There is your language. I don't think you realize how laws work. Again, laws relating to prostitution are the same. They talk about "obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute". If that law is taken away, then "obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute" will become legal.

As of today, possession and consumption of hard drugs are again subject to federal laws (i.e. subject to the Criminal Code of Canada), with some minor caveats.

Do you want to repeat yourself again?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

I think this all comes down to a simple question. If someone who is addicted to drugs and consuming the product in their home or a safe injection site a police or public health issue?

It clearly is a problem. I don't think the police (and courts) are going to be better positioned to deal with that problem than the public health authorities.

The problem is what they do afterwards. Steal to support their habit, pollute the public realm, get stabby...

[Migrant_Coconut]

AFAIK theft, vandalism and violence are the byproducts of substance addiction and homelessness - I've yet to hear of an addict with a fixed address wielding a knife.

On another note, do we really need two Public Disorder threads, or can we get back to the election?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK theft, vandalism and violence are the byproducts of substance addiction and homelessness - I've yet to hear of an addict with a fixed address wielding a knife.

On another note, do we really need two Public Disorder threads, or can we get back to the election?

Total BS. Most of these people are in some kind of "low barrier housing."

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Total BS. Most of these people are in some kind of "low barrier housing."

"Permanent home," then. I think we both know that addicts that rent or own and addicts in shelters/SROs/etc are two very different groups of people.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

AFAIK theft, vandalism and violence are the byproducts of substance addiction and homelessness - I've yet to hear of an addict with a fixed address wielding a knife.

On another note, do we really need two Public Disorder threads, or can we get back to the election?

Sure, we can get back to it if you want to pretend perceptions of public safety didn't play a huge part in the NDP losing seats.

As to housing, was this guy a junkie or just a nutbar:

A man allegedly assaulted a woman in an "unprovoked attack" in Downtown Vancouver over the Thanksgiving long weekend...

...Security cameras captured the incident and police arrested Massimo Falvo, 30, at a rooming house on Pender Street just a few hours later. He’s now charged with aggravated assault and remains behind bars.

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local...n-vancouver-cruise-terminal-2024-9662090

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Total BS. Most of these people are in some kind of "low barrier housing."

I agree based on my own work. I don't have statistics, but based on the number of troubled people I deal with on a weekly basis, being housed has very little impact on certain people's behaviour. I'm bordering on giving too much information about what I do, but I've dealt with people that willingly made the choice to be violent and to lose their ridiculously subsidized home, knowing they would be on the street.

I've seen it all, from pictures of axes along with threatening messages texted to landlords/management, to literal feces thrown at the walls of almost brand new homes.

Even with folks not in supportive housing but in trouble with our organization, drug paraphilia is usually visible in pictures.

So I partially agree with Coconut that drugs are to blame, but whether you are housed or unhoused, if you are in that world, you are going to be a menace to society. Drug use should not be tolerated by society; but unfortunately people of European descent in the West don't see it that way. I'm from an immigrant background and I deal with troubled people. I don't have statistics, but after literally hundreds of cases (in a year I will have dealt with over a thousand cases) you start to see a pattern: drug use is absolutely more prevalent among those born in Canada to European parents and super prevalent among the Indigenous community. In my opinion, this is not sustainable. The problem with listening to medical professionals is that you forget that their opinion is based on the constraints of our society and also solely directed towards one or more specific goals (i.e. reducing the number of immediate deaths from overdose).

Legislatures are the ones that need to change this and to move the goal post. Deaths in the short term are irrelevant. Canada cannot continue with this approach. In 50 years, the way things are going, the entirety of DT will be East Hastings.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

- snip -

See above. Plenty of renters and homeowners are abusing substances and not stabbing people, so in those cases, jail time isn't going to do jack for the public.

I'd rather have the government in Victoria actually solve the problem than pretend to solve the problem - either one will win back Surrey or Richmond, but only the former helps the province.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

... The problem with listening to medical professionals is that you forget that their opinion is based on the constraints of our society and also solely directed towards one or more specific goals (i.e. reducing the number of immediate deaths from overdose).

Can confirm. Anecdotally, some of them can spend hours on a mental health patient's weight loss (presumably their area of expertise) and completely forget about the "mental health" part.

[seamusmcduff]

I do find it ironic that apparently perceptions of public safety are what lost the NDP a significant amount of support, and yet the ridings with the worst homelessness and drug use issues went clearly to the NDP ( Strathcona, DTES, Yaletown etc.). So either it wasn't actually an issue in the election, or people were voting based on a fear of something that doesn't actually effect them nearly as much as the people who have to deal with it on a day to day basis. If it was the latter, then it suggests that it was more due to fear mongering than any real world issue, since it didn't really change the votes who see these issues every day. For example someone voting in most of Richmond or Coquitlam aren't actually voting based on drug use in their area, but a fear that it somehow might spread to their area.

The only riding I could see this actually being valid is maybe Surrey City Centre, but even then, from my experience it hasn't really gotten any worse than it's always been.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I do find it ironic that apparently perceptions of public safety are what lost the NDP a significant amount of support, and yet the ridings with the worst homelessness and drug use issues went clearly to the NDP ( Strathcona, DTES, Yaletown etc.). So either it wasn't actually an issue in the election, or people were voting based on a fear of something that doesn't actually effect them nearly as much as the people who have to deal with it on a day to day basis. If it was the latter, then it suggests that it was more due to fear mongering than any real world issue, since it didn't really change the votes who see these issues every day. For example someone voting in most of Richmond or Coquitlam aren't actually voting based on drug use in their area, but a fear that it somehow might spread to their area.

The only riding I could see this actually being valid is maybe Surrey City Centre, but even then, from my experience it hasn't really gotten any worse than it's always been.

I knew Richmond was going solidly blue when the safe injection site was announced. That is a massive no go for the Chinese. I saw both legitimate concerns along with misinformation being spread through WeChat and other platforms. Likewise, the demographics in Whalley continue to change, especially in the high rise towers that house new Chinese immigrants or CBC's that are moving from inner Vancouver/Richmond.

People here cannot fully grasp what a colossal mistake it was for the NDP to push rent control along with softening restrictions on pets in rentals. I know it was legislation to allow pets in purpose built rentals but the fear mongering in Surrey was it would impact property holders. That along with SOGI 123 lost them the Punjabi vote.

The NDP policies were massively unpopular in the Chinese and Indian community and they seemed to really underestimate the impact it would have on the election.

I really don't think crime played into the election results very much.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I do find it ironic that apparently perceptions of public safety are what lost the NDP a significant amount of support, and yet the ridings with the worst homelessness and drug use issues went clearly to the NDP ( Strathcona, DTES, Yaletown etc.). So either it wasn't actually an issue in the election, or people were voting based on a fear of something that doesn't actually effect them nearly as much as the people who have to deal with it on a day to day basis...

Residents of Canada and Northeast America are terrified about the Mexican border. NIMBYs drive in from Point Grey to complain about the Broadway Plan. People make bad choices when they're scared, I guess.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I do find it ironic that apparently perceptions of public safety are what lost the NDP a significant amount of support, and yet the ridings with the worst homelessness and drug use issues went clearly to the NDP ( Strathcona, DTES, Yaletown etc.). So either it wasn't actually an issue in the election, or people were voting based on a fear of something that doesn't actually effect them nearly as much as the people who have to deal with it on a day to day basis. If it was the latter, then it suggests that it was more due to fear mongering than any real world issue, since it didn't really change the votes who see these issues every day. For example someone voting in most of Richmond or Coquitlam aren't actually voting based on drug use in their area, but a fear that it somehow might spread to their area.

The only riding I could see this actually being valid is maybe Surrey City Centre, but even then, from my experience it hasn't really gotten any worse than it's always been.

a.k.a. demagoguery and demagoging.

We see it during every election season.

Sometimes the perception and fear of a thing can be more powerful than the actual experience of it, and that's what they play on.

Which isn't at all to say that those issues aren't real problems for the areas that are concerned with them, but rather it's easier to play them up for the people in other areas who are not on the ground having to deal with them.

[seamusmcduff]

Yes exactly. I'm not saying these things aren't an issue, I just find it interesting that the people most affected by it seem least swayed by it when it comes to voting.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It helps that the Cons ran De Genova in Yaletown. One would suspect that the same people who voted her out of Council might not want her in charge of their riding.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem is what they do afterwards. Steal to support their habit, pollute the public realm, get stabby...

We come back to what the objection is. The provincial government (with the support of the feds) has decided not to prosecute drug use in an individuals home or safe injection site. That is it. Theft, stabbing people etc. or other crimes that may be associated with drug use is still against the law. They can still be charged.

I think it should come down to having the police focus. The easiest thing for them to do is round up people consuming drugs. They are easy to spot, catch and prove. But they are low impact. I would rather see them go after the people who run the drug industry or are taking advantage of those addicted.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Residents of Canada and Northeast America are terrified about the Mexican border. NIMBYs drive in from Point Grey to complain about the Broadway Plan. People make bad choices when they're scared, I guess.

Sorry, what? I don't recall the Mexican border being any sort of issue for Canadians.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It helps that the Cons ran De Genova in Yaletown. One would suspect that the same people who voted her out of Council might not want her in charge of their riding.

I would pin that riding down to the NDP running a cop (married to ABC councilor and not popular with NDP diehards), and the OPS being moved thanks to ABC.