comment: >
  
  This won't change much of anything.
  For all intent and purpose drugs already were decriminalized. Either they were not charged or they were charged released and when the court case came up given unsupervised probation.
  So no real change.
context: It’s British Columbia. Why not put it in the headline, cbs news? >
  
  probably because people are not likely to know BC by name >
  
  Really? It's home to over 5 million people. If people say Queensland, or New South Wales, or Oaxaca, or Bavaria, or Sicily, I know where those places are. Is Canada just an especially unknown place? This seems surprising. >
  
  A lot of people won't know where those places are either. >
  
  A lot of people are just self centered and assume that everyone has the same perspective that they do. How many people have heard of Wuhan before 2019? It’s got a population of 12 million people. >
  
  The audience CBS News caters to however should know something about British Columbia, such as what country it's in. >
  
  CBS caters to anyone with a pulse, it's not some special news organization catering to the geographically minded. The average American has about as much reason to know about British Columbia as knowing about Chiapas, it's just not a topic that comes up in daily life. >
  
  Very interested to see if this works. >
  
  Since 2020 they’ve not been prosecuting minor drug offences.  The only difference is that now police won’t confiscate drugs. >
  
  So it’s not working. >
  
  I work in downtown Surrey, and ANYTHING to help welcome. We have so many deaths in that area. >
  
  How will this reduce deaths ? >
  
  Other countries have seen a lot of success with this method. I dont know Canada's and assume its similar.
  The idea is to remove barriers to recovery as well as making it safe for people to consume.
  Things like more pure drugs (not cut with anything dangerous), clean needles, lightening stigma, a support network, and doctors on site. >
  
  How will it enable more pure drugs ? [ I assume they already have a clean needle program - most places have]  - thre is no mention of support network or doctors on sites. The Portuguese model works-ish because the users are persuaded to join a rehab. Once they are in rehab - they cannot leave/just sign themselves out >
  
  Well they would have to supply it. IIRC  Switzerland saw success with treatments like this, but Im not well versed in the details. >
  
  I hope it helps make it better, because it sure can't make it any worse. >
  
  Hold my beer.... >
  
  “Canada province”. Just say the name of the province. >
  
  It sounds like a medieval person talking to someone during their travels. "I come from Canada province." >
  
  Worked in Portugal >
  
  Portugal also has mandatory treatment, however.  Canada will not.  There's little change in "help" for those that will use this system, Portugal has tons.  So, im skeptical, but I suppose we'll see! >
  
  Their "dissuasion commissions" made up of lawyers and social workers do not have the power to mandate compulsory treatment. They either recommend treatment or community service for addicts and if they refuse the commission can issue a sanction such a fine or taking away personal possessions.
  Authorities can't forcibly drag addicts into treatment but once they voluntarily consent to treatment they have conditions for release, you can't just check yourself out any time if you have a history of overdosing. Apparently 85% of their addicts voluntarily agree to treatment when asked to by a dissuasion commission. >
  
  
  Authorities can't forcibly drag addicts into treatment
  
  How else would you describe court ordered rehab? >
  
  Addicts are not automatically criminals and can not be given “court ordered rehab” which is an option for those convicted of trafficking, not possession, with sentences that can partly be served in rehab instead of jail. >
  
  Just decriminalizing is not enough, rehabilitation centers should be opened in numbers . >
  
  They decriminalized possession, but kept the punishments for distribution. So drug quality will remain the same, similar number of people will likely use (if not slightly more that just feared the penalties), cops will return drugs to people rather than confiscating them, and the number of deaths will drop?! What?
  If you're gonna decriminalize it, at least provide a safe source for it?? >
  
  There is at least one store illegally selling illicit drugs, which is being ignored by the police. >
  
  That’s not enough. You need hundreds and stringent testing of all the drugs they sell. Otherwise there’s no point to decriminalize possession. Not gonna save any lives. >
  
  How do you think these things happen? It's a step by step process. >
  
  One of the stated aims is to reduce stigma. But the stigma of these drugs keeps a lot of people from trying in the first place. If you reduce that, you may end up with lots of people with a more casual attitude who end up hooked.
  I don’t think this will achieve what the provincial government hopes. >
  
  The stigma encourages people to become addicted to hard drugs, because people start trying drugs and think “wow, everyone was lying to me, why not try the harder stuff.”
  Heroin is less harmful than alcohol, it’s just scarier because a lot of people inject it so that they can maximize the lifetime of their supply, because drugs are expensive.
  People commit crimes to get drugs because they are expensive, and the reason drugs are expensive is because of prohibition.
  Prohibition creates almost all of the negative things that you associate with drugs. >
  
  
  Heroin is less harmful than alcohol
  
  source? >
  
  
  Heroin is less harmful than alcohol
  source?
  
  Since we're talking about Canada, roughly 15000 deaths per year due to alcohol.  [Source]
  I can't find specific heroin numbers, but there were a total of 32632 opioid toxicity deaths between January 2016 and June 2022, so roughly 5000 per year.  [Source]
  So yes, alcohol kills three times as many people per year in Canada as opioids. >
  
  LMAO how many it kills doesnt mean shit about harmfulness, you have to take consumption in mind.
  with that logic an extremely dangerous insta kill drug that is rare is "less harmful than alcohol" >
  
  
  LMAO how many it kills doesnt mean shit about harmfulness
  
  I'd like you to take a deep breath, look at your statement again and make sure you really, really think about it.
  Are you saying that, on the scale of most harmful to least harmful, death is not the most harm?  All right, what's more harmful than death? >
  
  what Im saying is death is most harmful yes, but you have to look at consumption amount when judging how dangerous a substance is 
  like I said 
  
  with that logic an extremely dangerous insta kill drug that is rare is "less harmful than alcohol" >
  
  All recreational drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Ottawa - A Canadian province on Tuesday decriminalized the possession of small amounts of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and other hard drugs in a radical policy shift to address an opioid overdose crisis that has killed thousands.
  Kathryn Botchford, whose husband Jason died of a drug overdose in 2019, said she had no idea he'd even been using drugs.
  Canada has spent more than Can$800 million to try to stem the opioid crisis, including on addiction treatment, Naloxone supplies and opening 39 supervised drug consumption sites across Canada.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: drug^#1 addiction^#2 more^#3 health^#4 people^#5 >
  
  It definitely worked well for Portland. >
  
  Possession, not sale >
  
  Decriminalization and then giving the drug for free. It's the only way forward that will bring positive change. The usage should be monitored by healthcare professionals, that should be the only requirement to receive free drug.This way the patient will stay close to the healthcare and recieve best possible tools for the recovery. Everything else will alienate them from society and create illegal market. >
  
  I'm glad to see this approach and I hope the data we get after this is in effect for a while is positive for the people living there. >
  
  And what about education ? What about creating a society where people don't chose the path of self-harm ?
  The fact that so many people go for this poison is unsettling, and it feels like the approach is to reduce the symptoms of the problem rather than really solving it. >
  
  I don’t understand how this would help the problem? I always hear about how legalizing drugs will help deter people from using drugs. I just don’t see it. >
  
  Are they going to go totally hands off on this? Or will they still be using taxpayer funds to bring them back to life?