Hacker News Reader

As someone who doesn't live in an area with a similar liberal law regarding drug use the article was very confusing to me. Perhaps you can help me understand.

The article keeps talking about "problematic" drug use, but I don't understand what that means. When is drug use problematic and when is it unproblematic? They claim that from now on they'll be able to arrest people who disturb the peace, but then aren't there laws already that already make it illegal to disturb the peace, irrespective of drug use? Is there a special kind of problematic behaviour that is not OK when consuming drugs, but is OK otherwise?? Having no experience with the situation, this all feels quite strange.

Same thing with hospitals: can't they just restrict the unmonitored use of drugs within medical facilities rather than some ambiguous notion of problematic use?

Overall, reading the article makes me feel that some people don't like seeing crackheads consume in public (which I understand), and since these people vote, a law is passed that had no head nor tail. I don't see how the law addresses the root of any issue.

I would classify unproblematic drug use like the majority of people who get high at home, house parties, or ravers rolling on X. Basically not being a nuisance to the public during/after they consume. Very subjective opinion though, so it’s hard to draw a line.

Problematic: it causes problems not just for you, who are choosing to take the drugs, but also for others. Perhaps that's because you've been on meth for 5 days and are now raving mad in the streets. Perhaps you've taken fentanyl in a public park and are leaning like a zombie on the playground. Perhaps you've fried your brain and are unable to work, only able to aggressively panhandle to feed your addiction.

But then why not make the problematic behaviour itself what is illegal? Aggressive panhandling should be illegal, regardless of whether the perpetrators were on drugs. It makes people, particularly those that are vulnerable to violent crime, unsafe. Make being raving mad in the streets illegal too. I am surprised that there isn't already a law in BC that does. With regards to being a zombie on public benches, it's hard for me to assess why that is problematic. On the other hand making drug use on children playground illegal seems like an elementary rule to me.

What I mean is that none of these issues seem to be really well addressed by the broad sweep of a "don't be problematic" law.

The issue isn't that there's no laws covering these transgressions. It's the lack of prosecution that's the main issue. Even if you arrest someone for aggressively panhandling they'll be released without bail that same day. This eliminates the incentive for police to do anything since the core issue is unresolved and they still have to process the arrest.

Right. So creating a new law won't change anything then? They should rather work on making sure the existing laws are being enforced.

How do you compel a prosecutor to bring a case forward, if they know the judge is likely to dismiss the case. It's a weird situation honestly where the laws exist, and police can enforce the law, but the judicial system turns a blind eye. It's a systemic issue starting at the federal level.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-bail-refo...

The article you link doesn't seem to be about the thing you're talking about. It's about whether the suspect is detained pending trial, not about whether they're ultimately convicted or acquitted.

Now of course, you could make the argument that detention pending trial is important because the actual sentence from conviction is too temporally remote from the criminal act to serve as an effective deterrent, but you didn't make that argument. If that's what you mean, you should state it explicitly!

Or, the article seems to also imply people aren't being found guilty or sentenced harshly when it talks about people "cycling in and out" of the justice system, but it doesn't seem to say this explicitly, as the focus of the article is on pre-trial detention. If what you're saying is in fact true, it would have been better to find an article that directly supports it.

(Although, wow, the numbers in there are ridiculous. 77% released on violent offense + breach of conditions??)

Prosecuting the negative behavior that comes from drug use is seen as being as bad as prosecuting the drug use itself. Yes, shoplifting should be a crime with consequences if you are rich, housed, unhoused, clean, or an addict, but the moment the city police crackdown on shoplifting they are accused by some people of going after homeless drug addicts.

They just put a new playground in at the Ballard Commons here in Seattle for the very reason you mention. It is publicly more acceptable to ban and actually prosecute anti social behavior near a playground with kids, than other places. This is the same commons that turned into a drug encampment for a couple of years during the pandemic, and the main reason they decided to put the playground in…

I see. Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense how the law on playgrounds would backfire.

It's still confusing to me that to prevent being accused of targeting homeless addicts they'd make homeless drug use illegal so to speak.

As a complete outsider, it's an interesting situation to try to understand. I appreciate the patience of people in this thread replying to my naive questions.

Drug use is already mostly decriminalized here, and there has been lots of problems as a result, the same ones they have in Vancouver and Portland. Instead, we are trying to prosecute the other stuff, like shoplifting, running around naked and threatening people with knives, etc…the playground helps with that, in that even drug addicts don’t want to freak out kids.

I am also from Brazil and have been in Vancouver for 10 years. This is a big exaggeration, both on the beer and the "areas to not go" (unless you mean some parts of East Hastings).

Vancouver is one of the safest cities in the world, and beers are now legal in many parks. I never saw a police ticketing or complaining someone having a beer on a park.

I do support this change in policy.

You must not get out often. The police roll down kits beach on ATVs looking to give out tickets for open alcohol throughout the summer.

Just go to English Bay on a sunny day and open a beer in the sand and see. Alcohol is prohibited there again since several months ago and being actively enforced.

Or check this https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/05-31-2021-update-regarding-t... and https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/new-lawsuit-targets...

I lived on Chilco & Nelson for many years... people simply have Starbucks cups with beer inside or other equivalent methodology of "wink wink". As long as you aren't being an ass there's zero problem..

The real reason is that you drinking a beer is easy to deal with at every level of escalation.

The homeless using drugs in the street are not.

Same reason normal, middle class people in decent vehicles get pulled over for expired tags or burnt out brake lights, yet the shit boxes with 3 tires and a plastic bag for a windshield keep on rolling.

One is likely to provide revenue to the local government. The other isn't.

Revenue? I thought the goal was public safety...

Why did you think that?

Ha! I actually let out a huge laugh when I read that. Good one.

If this wasn’t a cynical joke, I sincerely beg you to cover your eyes, plug your ears, and never again ask how the sausage is made.

The older I get, the more I can empathize with Cypher from the first Matrix movie. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

LOL. We actually have strong evidence that vehicle safety inspections do absolutely nothing to reduce accident rates and that's why 13 US states don't do them.

And yet, my level of danger to society is also close to zero.

This happened with me right after they reverted the pandemic decision to allow alcohol there and I didn't know. I was drinking in good faith like I did for several months when they allowed it during lockdown.

Still, it is very frustrating that the beer would warrant a couple of park rangers to approach and enforce, while just a few meters away someone was doing hard drugs visibly completely out of their minds and screaming at passer byes.

I've often wondered what would happen if I plopped down on the steps of SF City Hall with a 6 pack and started downing them... ought to test it sometime.

> I honestly never understood why [...]

I can think of an explanation. Your addiction levels are likely to be very different. And therefore your body's ability to avoid your substance is likely to be very different from theirs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to receive more punishment when you have more control over your negative behavior.

> It doesn't seem unreasonable to receive more punishment when you have more control over your negative behavior.

This sort of thing never ends well

> It doesn't seem unreasonable to receive more punishment when you have more control over your negative behavior

I think it should be the opposite. Because I am superior, I should receive less punishment. Inferior people should receive more punishment so they are incentivized to become superior or disappear.

I can't tell what you're going for here (is this serious or sarcastic?) but I was just trying to explain a potential reason, not endorse or reject it.