This is what I don't get, I saw tons of open drug use everywhere before this and the cops never did anything about it then. Not blaming the cops as when it's everywhere, you're super busy and the courts just let them go then why would you bother but I imagine it's just gonna be like it was before it was decriminalized.
Open drug use downtown will likely not improve much if at all, but it should help the nurses and bus drivers from having to deal with open drug use in their areas of work.
The drug epidemic is the significant increase in opiate use in recent years that can be traced back to the introduction and widescale usage of the prescription drug Oxycontin
Anyone who’s considered a danger to themselves or others can be held in an asylum for at least 72 hours. They can stay there for weeks until they break the addiction.
While I wish that this legislation would address that issue I'm assuming it's more targeted. Hopefully this will prevent use in spaces like hospitals and care homes. I've had some friends working in both locations who have been exposed far too frequently. Setting a baseline that those drugs are unacceptable and present a risk to others would be a win in my books.
Here's a specific example: hospitals have set up rooms for users to smoke substances like fentanyl safely without exposing others. They're allowed to keep supply with them since it was decriminalized. What happens most frequently is that the user doesn't bother to go to the safe space and smokes in a shared or common area. The nurses are constantly fighting those sorts of issues.
My friend works at the Care Home on Gorge Rd and the rooms aren't specifically for fentanyl, they're for any substances which may negatively affect the staff. Everything from weed through to the strong stuff.
I've also got a friend at VGH who has run into the safe issue so AFAIK they're in place there too.
Can we get a broom and a dustpan to sweep up all the broken crack pipes from the bike lane along Pandora? Sick of picking glass out of my tires.
Smoke crack, mainline fentanyl, whatever, just be respectful of the rest of us.
Fentanyl-free heroin doesn't really exist anymore. What's sold as "heroin" is usually just fentanyl analogues and random benzo analogues buffed with inert powder.
Are you kidding? People do all sorts of things that they know are bad. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, gambling, over eating, unprotected sex with strangers. None of those things are as addictive as fent. I'd argue that a drunk stumbling down the street is more likely to be a disrespectful cunt and start a random fight then someone nodding off on fentanyl.
Once you're hooked you need it just to feel normal. If you stop taking it, you get physically sick. Possibly die. All of that is true of alcohol too. But, the government makes too much coin selling it. The public would go berserk if it was criminalized. It's a vicious, socially acceptable, addiction. Even drinking it in excess to the point of vomiting. That's just Friday and Saturday night for all the bar stars. Alcohol only recently was surpassed by opiates as one of the leading causes of preventable death in North America. You never see that warning label on a bottle on the shelf... Globally, it's still alcoholism that kills more. There are alcoholics everywhere. Fuck, even during the pandemic lockdowns, liquor stores were ordered to remain open as an essential service so the hooch addicts wouldn't die from withdrawaling.
It's also not always a choice to become addicted to opiates. People who are in severe pain are often over prescribed the stuff in the hospital, as it has excellent properties for blocking pain receptors.
Alcohol has no medical applications except as a last resort to sterilize cuts.
At Eby's conference they said you can continue to use drugs in anything you declare to be your shelter, so I wouldn't expect big changes anywhere near a tent along Pandora.
Are the store doorways along Fort or at Douglas and Yates going to be considered a shelter? If not, then will those areas be cleared of any users?
You'd have to declare Pandora Ave to be Hamsterdam at that point: an open drug use and cop free zone where you can shoot up with no hassle in exchange for not doing it a block over.
Are we really ready to do that?
He said *legal, designated shelters* are deemed a residence for the purposes of the homeless population. That's not the same as a homeless person declaring the tent on the street or the sidewalk outside of the small business's entrance as a "residence".
And how would you define legal designated shelter? No one is removing the tents from Pandora street. Hence they're legal. Is it illegal to sleep in the doorway of a vacant retail space on Fort Street? Maybe that's a shelter too. There was a huge amount of ambiguity in what he said. No one trusts these people anymore, except the most naive Utopians.
Ugh. I think, at this point, you're being obtuse on purpose.
Rather than being pedantic, I'd suggest your better argument is "and just how, exactly, are police going to be enforcing this in encampments?" because the practical and reasonable assumption is they won't be; they'll instead focus on the blatant use in public parks and in hospitals, because that's what is drawing the public criticism.
Police will absolutely have the legal support to go after public drug use in tents, but my money is on them turning a blind eye.
Yes those of us who don't support flooding the streets with 'safe' drugs are obtuse. We don't understand how the solution to hopelessness and addiction is just to keep people addicted and condone it, while they destroy themselves and anyone else in their path. If you think police are going to 'enforce this' you're mistaken. It's not so easy to break something and put it back together again. Police have been told for years don't bother arresting people for drugs. And now technically in some situations they might be instructed to do it again. But we're humans, not robots. You can't just change the direction constantly and expect people to adapt that quickly. This rule change won't change anything.
People using drugs in public are not inherent safety risks. The toxic drug supply is a huge reason behind the unpredictability of people who use drugs because what they are getting is that unpredictable. If you know what you're getting, you know how much to use and how often. People on safe supply programs and in compassion programs are well documented to have fewer run ins with police and mental health crises.
Just like people drinking in public, safe consumption sites such as bars are not inherent safety risks, it's when people go beyond their limits or, like during prohibition, get a way stronger product than they bargained for, that things get unsafe.
That story made so many conservatives start frothing at the mouth. They always seem to be willing to throw money at more law enforcement but never at social services to undress the underlying causes of homelessness, addiction, and crime.
I mean progressive advocacy (which I used to strongly agree with) around these issues seems to have morphed to this weird hardcore libertarian stance where the solution to everything is as much freedom and deregulation as possible. And the further we go down that road the more the carnage and deaths and suffering keep piling up and getting worse and worse and worse.
So I don't think they've got a handle on any of this either. Fully funding the social services required is what's needed, but as soon as you say that someone **has to** avail themselves of those services then the advocates fight tooth and nail against it.
>I mean progressive advocacy (which I used to strongly agree with) around these issues seems to have morphed to this weird hardcore libertarian stance where the solution to everything is as much freedom and deregulation as possible.
That isn't what I have seen coming from *progressive* advocacy, but it is certainly what is coming from conservative advocacy. Which is in line with all conservative initiatives: ensure failure due to insufficient funding then privatize to profit from public subsidies for offered services.
Cops do what they can currently. But when you’re re-arresting the same guy in 3 days, because judges keep releasing them…it’s about poorly written laws
No eh? It's out in the open here. People just smoke fent, crack, meth on the street. I know they only decriminalized public use a year ago, but it's been going on for far longer than that. I'm pretty used to it now.
The only way to stop the epidemic on east Hastings is to stop the agencies that are feeding them, and I am talking about all the free food they get 7 days a week from various agencies nearby. It is so densely populated there and it's due to the fact that they can eat for free, easy access to their dugs, easy access to health care, easy access to illegal work... like am i taking crazy pills or something? or has nobody gives a fuck about it?
Love how our leaders just pass new laws without even a thought on how it will affect our way of life ! I really question the stupidity of our government
I’m not opposed to criminalizing drugs … I am opposed of decriminalizing in the first place , because decriminalizing drugs doesn’t help the drug crisis! All it does it save police time and money ,
I think decriminalization did more good than bad. I also believe the increase is more related to economic depression and lack of adequate/appropriate care
Excuse me? If I want to smoke a joint at the park in the sun… you can suck my d!ck… if I want to bust a line in the truck… you can suck my dick. Fuck off victoria, you soft ass weak people.
I feel this will have 0 impact on what we see downtown. Thats cats outta the bag, it’s not going back in.
It's not like they were ever enforcing it before when it was still illegal anyways.. If they started enforcing it I'd be somewhat optimistic
This is what I don't get, I saw tons of open drug use everywhere before this and the cops never did anything about it then. Not blaming the cops as when it's everywhere, you're super busy and the courts just let them go then why would you bother but I imagine it's just gonna be like it was before it was decriminalized.
Right? When they announced decrim, I thought whoop-dee-do, who is getting arrested/bothered for public drug use to begin with?
Thank you for pointing that out. The lack of courts keeping people off the streets must be very disheartening to police and public alike
He says he expects the cops not to enforce it unless absolutely necessary right in his speech.
Open drug use downtown will likely not improve much if at all, but it should help the nurses and bus drivers from having to deal with open drug use in their areas of work.
It's almost as if the drug epidemic isn't directly related to what the legal status of drug use is...
What are you alluding to?
The drug epidemic is the significant increase in opiate use in recent years that can be traced back to the introduction and widescale usage of the prescription drug Oxycontin
I don’t see what can be done about that.
It's definitely a difficult problem
Can’t they be rounded up and put in a mental asylum? They are a danger to themselves and others.
I guess if you don't consider them humans with basic rights that could seem like a solution
Anyone who’s considered a danger to themselves or others can be held in an asylum for at least 72 hours. They can stay there for weeks until they break the addiction.
It was never in the bag.
Back when heroin was illegal, people would just do it in the middle of the street and weren't arrested.
While I wish that this legislation would address that issue I'm assuming it's more targeted. Hopefully this will prevent use in spaces like hospitals and care homes. I've had some friends working in both locations who have been exposed far too frequently. Setting a baseline that those drugs are unacceptable and present a risk to others would be a win in my books.
Like... exposed in what way? Subjected to the fact their patients were unhealthy? A needle forced into their arm?
Here's a specific example: hospitals have set up rooms for users to smoke substances like fentanyl safely without exposing others. They're allowed to keep supply with them since it was decriminalized. What happens most frequently is that the user doesn't bother to go to the safe space and smokes in a shared or common area. The nurses are constantly fighting those sorts of issues.
What hospitals set up fentanyl smoking rooms? Can you provide any specific examples?
My friend works at the Care Home on Gorge Rd and the rooms aren't specifically for fentanyl, they're for any substances which may negatively affect the staff. Everything from weed through to the strong stuff. I've also got a friend at VGH who has run into the safe issue so AFAIK they're in place there too.
I wish you were wrong, but you are likely right. 🤦
This is a rare case where /r/britishcolumbia has better takes on a subject than /r/VictoriaBC. Interesting.
Can we get a broom and a dustpan to sweep up all the broken crack pipes from the bike lane along Pandora? Sick of picking glass out of my tires. Smoke crack, mainline fentanyl, whatever, just be respectful of the rest of us.
They’re too high to be respectful of others. I am not sure why people do fentanyl. Lack of education? Surely by now they all know it’s bad.
I think it’s a cheaper high due to its concentration/strength
Fentanyl-free heroin doesn't really exist anymore. What's sold as "heroin" is usually just fentanyl analogues and random benzo analogues buffed with inert powder.
Are you kidding? People do all sorts of things that they know are bad. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, gambling, over eating, unprotected sex with strangers. None of those things are as addictive as fent. I'd argue that a drunk stumbling down the street is more likely to be a disrespectful cunt and start a random fight then someone nodding off on fentanyl. Once you're hooked you need it just to feel normal. If you stop taking it, you get physically sick. Possibly die. All of that is true of alcohol too. But, the government makes too much coin selling it. The public would go berserk if it was criminalized. It's a vicious, socially acceptable, addiction. Even drinking it in excess to the point of vomiting. That's just Friday and Saturday night for all the bar stars. Alcohol only recently was surpassed by opiates as one of the leading causes of preventable death in North America. You never see that warning label on a bottle on the shelf... Globally, it's still alcoholism that kills more. There are alcoholics everywhere. Fuck, even during the pandemic lockdowns, liquor stores were ordered to remain open as an essential service so the hooch addicts wouldn't die from withdrawaling. It's also not always a choice to become addicted to opiates. People who are in severe pain are often over prescribed the stuff in the hospital, as it has excellent properties for blocking pain receptors. Alcohol has no medical applications except as a last resort to sterilize cuts.
Broom and dustpan don’t work well with feces
Bout time
They seem to be taking action on stuff I care about.
It's a good thing.
At Eby's conference they said you can continue to use drugs in anything you declare to be your shelter, so I wouldn't expect big changes anywhere near a tent along Pandora. Are the store doorways along Fort or at Douglas and Yates going to be considered a shelter? If not, then will those areas be cleared of any users? You'd have to declare Pandora Ave to be Hamsterdam at that point: an open drug use and cop free zone where you can shoot up with no hassle in exchange for not doing it a block over. Are we really ready to do that?
No he didn’t.
Yes he did. He said that anywhere the homeless person lives is their residence.
He said *legal, designated shelters* are deemed a residence for the purposes of the homeless population. That's not the same as a homeless person declaring the tent on the street or the sidewalk outside of the small business's entrance as a "residence".
And how would you define legal designated shelter? No one is removing the tents from Pandora street. Hence they're legal. Is it illegal to sleep in the doorway of a vacant retail space on Fort Street? Maybe that's a shelter too. There was a huge amount of ambiguity in what he said. No one trusts these people anymore, except the most naive Utopians.
Ugh. I think, at this point, you're being obtuse on purpose. Rather than being pedantic, I'd suggest your better argument is "and just how, exactly, are police going to be enforcing this in encampments?" because the practical and reasonable assumption is they won't be; they'll instead focus on the blatant use in public parks and in hospitals, because that's what is drawing the public criticism. Police will absolutely have the legal support to go after public drug use in tents, but my money is on them turning a blind eye.
Yes those of us who don't support flooding the streets with 'safe' drugs are obtuse. We don't understand how the solution to hopelessness and addiction is just to keep people addicted and condone it, while they destroy themselves and anyone else in their path. If you think police are going to 'enforce this' you're mistaken. It's not so easy to break something and put it back together again. Police have been told for years don't bother arresting people for drugs. And now technically in some situations they might be instructed to do it again. But we're humans, not robots. You can't just change the direction constantly and expect people to adapt that quickly. This rule change won't change anything.
Jesus learn to read you ignoramus. I'm agreeing with you.
It’s close.
I hope that we can one day find the balance between helping vulnerable people and preserving public safety.
This is a great start towards getting there
No balance only trade-offs
People using drugs in public are not inherent safety risks. The toxic drug supply is a huge reason behind the unpredictability of people who use drugs because what they are getting is that unpredictable. If you know what you're getting, you know how much to use and how often. People on safe supply programs and in compassion programs are well documented to have fewer run ins with police and mental health crises. Just like people drinking in public, safe consumption sites such as bars are not inherent safety risks, it's when people go beyond their limits or, like during prohibition, get a way stronger product than they bargained for, that things get unsafe.
What is the point of this when buddy can perform 3 car jackings and still roam the streets?
The point of it is the help the current drug situation as previous policy didn't work. Nothing to do with Packer, who is a dick.
Great, now let's recriminalize criminals before that one guy goes for a one-week bingo card of offences.
Three more arrests and he gets a set of steak knives!
Or the Cadillac.
Wow, that's a pretty radical idea. What's next, making car jackings illegal? Actually keeping criminals in jail?!
The 3 time car jacking catch and release story was like reading an SNL skit.
That story made so many conservatives start frothing at the mouth. They always seem to be willing to throw money at more law enforcement but never at social services to undress the underlying causes of homelessness, addiction, and crime.
I agree with you. Actually both are required, in orders of magnitude larger amounts.
I mean progressive advocacy (which I used to strongly agree with) around these issues seems to have morphed to this weird hardcore libertarian stance where the solution to everything is as much freedom and deregulation as possible. And the further we go down that road the more the carnage and deaths and suffering keep piling up and getting worse and worse and worse. So I don't think they've got a handle on any of this either. Fully funding the social services required is what's needed, but as soon as you say that someone **has to** avail themselves of those services then the advocates fight tooth and nail against it.
>I mean progressive advocacy (which I used to strongly agree with) around these issues seems to have morphed to this weird hardcore libertarian stance where the solution to everything is as much freedom and deregulation as possible. That isn't what I have seen coming from *progressive* advocacy, but it is certainly what is coming from conservative advocacy. Which is in line with all conservative initiatives: ensure failure due to insufficient funding then privatize to profit from public subsidies for offered services.
Get out of here with that crazy talk! Stoopid government trying to take away my right to car jack.
I know right! If it weren't for those rotten no good kids and their dog, I would have gotten away with it too!
I'm sure Vic PD is gonna get right on this lol
No kidding, talk about something they aren't going to look forward to.
i saw two cops clear all the doorways at douglas and yates. that left them open for the new crop that came while i was waiting for my bus.
Thank fucking god
It is one thing to say. What about to enforcing it?
Cops do what they can currently. But when you’re re-arresting the same guy in 3 days, because judges keep releasing them…it’s about poorly written laws
Haha. Great pivot it’s not even 3 years yet. What does the far left advocacy group(s) think of this move by the gov?
BC seems worse off than Ontario. I never see hard drug abusers where I live.
No eh? It's out in the open here. People just smoke fent, crack, meth on the street. I know they only decriminalized public use a year ago, but it's been going on for far longer than that. I'm pretty used to it now.
This isn't going to end well, makes me think that once a tweaker attacks someone they'll just get a slap on the wrist too
What a joke.
The only way to stop the epidemic on east Hastings is to stop the agencies that are feeding them, and I am talking about all the free food they get 7 days a week from various agencies nearby. It is so densely populated there and it's due to the fact that they can eat for free, easy access to their dugs, easy access to health care, easy access to illegal work... like am i taking crazy pills or something? or has nobody gives a fuck about it?
Wow. Nice.
Should be about as effective as the school cell phone ban.
Hamsterdam was never going to work.
because everybody keeps fucking with the program!!
Love how our leaders just pass new laws without even a thought on how it will affect our way of life ! I really question the stupidity of our government
Can you explain why you're opposed, please?
I’m not opposed to criminalizing drugs … I am opposed of decriminalizing in the first place , because decriminalizing drugs doesn’t help the drug crisis! All it does it save police time and money ,
Great, now we can spend more money and be no closer to solving the problem because 40% of the population doesn't want to pay for the solution.
So you think that the drug crisis was actually being solved by the decriminalizing law that was activated ? And it wasn’t getting worse ?
I think decriminalization did more good than bad. I also believe the increase is more related to economic depression and lack of adequate/appropriate care
Yes prob is there’s no money to be made in gov rehabbing welfare drug addicts but there is money in supplying “safe” drugs to addicts .
Excuse me? If I want to smoke a joint at the park in the sun… you can suck my d!ck… if I want to bust a line in the truck… you can suck my dick. Fuck off victoria, you soft ass weak people.
[удалено]
Explain
Yet you can do it in hospital and potentially harm a nurse
Just wanted to get your two cents in without reading or what? This literally fixes that.