Hacker News Reader

Comment by belval | Hacker News Reader

Coming back from Vacouver, I might be cynical but this is symbolic if anything.

I work in downtown and got to see junkies shooting up in broad daylight, the cops weren't arresting them for possession, they just walked by like everyone else.

These drugs have been unofficially decrimininalized for years in BC. This doesn't change anything.

> The fear of being criminalized has led many people to hide their addiction and use drugs alone.

They have literal camps of homeless near Chinatown/Gastown with pockets everywhere else. They don't seem to be shy about their substance abuse.

View on HN

Decriminalizing while not doing anything to discourage public use is probably the worst of both worlds. People look at Portugal like it was decriminalization alone that solved everything, but it didn't. They actively dissuade use and refer caught users to treatment.

With the backing of psychologists and other health-care professionals, the law decriminalized the use and possession of up to 10 days' worth of narcotics or other drugs for individuals' own use. (Dealers still go to jail.) Instead of facing prison time and criminal records, users who are caught by police go before a local three-person commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction, a panel typically composed of a lawyer plus some combination of a physician, psychologist, social worker or other health-care professional with expertise in drug addiction. The commission assesses whether the individual is addicted and suggests treatment as needed. Nonaddicted individuals may receive a warning or a fine. However, the commission can decide to suspend enforcement of these penalties for six months if the individual agrees to get help—an information session, motivational interview or brief intervention—targeted to his or her pattern of drug use. If that happens and the person doesn't appear before the commission again during the six-month period, the case is closed.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid

I think another obligation of a society that truly wants to tackle this is to help provide a life that is “better” than addiction, so to speak. Addictive drug use is frequently a symptom of a deeper root issue (long-term pain, physical abuse, homelessness, etc) and functions as a means of escape, so the solution is often much more holistic than just getting someone off drugs.

There should be programs introduced to educate the drug addicted and homeless that if they cut out the bad habit, pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and work 7 full-time jobs and/or win the lottery, they too can own a home in Vancouver one day.

Exactly. I had had a promising life until housing prices went up and then I ended up a drug addict out of despair of no possibility of owning a single family home in Vancouver.

> single family home

> in Vancouver

You gotta pick one though. There are actual, objective space constraints that mean not everyone can have a SFH in a city hemmed in by mountains, ocean, and an international border. You might have to settle for an apartment.

That apartments are expensive and not as nice as they should be in ways they could be is another matter entirely, and one I will take your side on every day of the week! But limited supply of land leading to exhorbitant prices can't really be avoided.

Those cops might have walked past those particular users, but that doesn't mean they didn't harass or arrest others.

Keeping drugs illegal allows selective enforcement, where people are treated differently at the whim of law enforcement.

The uncomfortable truth is that selective enforcement is a way to deal with homeless people causing trouble and leaving those that are just staying in their corner alone.

This will not lead to a quality of life improvement for people in Vancouver.

That's not a good solution because it makes the law ambiguous as to where it should be enforced.

The better solution is to treat it like alcohol - legalize it but make being a nuisance still be a violation (ie Disorderly Conduct and Public Intoxication). This makes it clear it shouldn't be enforced say in a night club or likely a homeless camp - but still allows police to intervene with people causing problems.

It's not just troublemakers who the cops harass.

It depends on the cop, the situation, who you are, and the cop's mood.

It's the most vulnerable, powerless, and despised (like poor drug addicts) who are most likely to have some asshole, powertripping cop selectively target -- whether or not the victim is doing anything wrong.

The "decriminalization" that is the status quo is merely the policy directive that the police decline to arrest and prosecutors decline to send regular users to jail.

There has been lots of evidence that the police very strongly police drug use and regularly confiscate drugs from drug users.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/09/18/Police-Drug-Seizures-DTES...

This is one of the core main changes that will be coming from this legislation. It's real decriminalization and the police can no longer confiscate small amounts of drugs.

This is likely a practical precursor to enabling doctors to prescribe a safe supply of drugs so that drug users don't have to rely on toxic street drugs that will kill them.

But beyond that, if police are no longer stopping and frisking drug users to confiscate their drugs, then this should limit risky drug use behaviours which should save lives. Right now people use drugs by themselves quickly to avoid the police. If they're no longer afraid of the police it may increase the likelihood that they use safe injection sites and more public drug use sites where they are safer and can be more easily connected with the health system.

Decriminalizing possession has little effect (especially short-term effect) as long as the production and distribution are still handled by the black market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com