[aaplok]

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.

[ProjectArcturis]

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.

[aaplok]

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

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…

[aaplok]

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.

[seanmcdirmid]

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.

[davitocan]

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.

[aaplok]

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

[davitocan]

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...

[Sniffnoy]

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??)

[kredd]

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.