BC's internal decriminalization reports don't match 'media frenzy'
BC's internal decriminalization reports don't match 'media frenzy'
While much has been made of claims public drug use is increasing, the BC government's own internal reports make little — if any — mention of the issue
BC’s decriminalization pilot project showed some promising signs, but those engaged by government project managers still outlined issues with a lack of resources for drug users and an increasingly stigmatizing narrative forming in the media, according to internal documents.
The BC government has project managers reporting to each of the five health authorities on progress related to “decriminalization” in the province, since a federal government exemption for possession of up to 2.5 grams (cumulative) of a variety of drugs came into effect early this year.
And while there are concerns laid out in the reports, none of the comments — at least, none that weren’t redacted — reflect narratives of increasing public drug use in the media.
First, the positive
Project managers noted in their reports, obtained through a freedom-of-information request, that there were some positive consequences of the decriminalization project. As noted in the Georgia Straight this week, there has been a 76% drop in charges for simple possession of drugs.
And some reports noted that people’s drugs were no longer or infrequently being confiscated by police.
“Anecdotally, this is different than what we heard in 2020-21, where folks frequently reported having their meds and drugs confiscated by law enforcement,” wrote the First Nations Health Authority project manager in June.
As hospitals now permit drug users to keep their drugs, Interior Health reported anecdotally that there were increases in people using drugs on site — but also that people who would have left early against their doctor’s advice are now more often staying because their drugs aren’t being confiscated.
An anti-poverty ‘media frenzy’
And while the project managers’ reports do outline several issues, the documents make little mention of narratives around public drug use. But when those narratives are mentioned, they largely reflect concerns about a “‘media frenzy’ that is negative and fuelling anti-poverty sentiments.”
“Increase in media stories involving PWUD [people who use drugs] and relating to bad outcomes (ie. psychosis, 'running in the street'). Feels like they are brainwashing the public,” reads one comment from a peer engagement session by Interior Health in the Kootenay/Boundary region. “Has stoked anti-poverty / anti-homeless sentiment.”
Another comment in that same session reflects a similar sentiment: “Police creating dramatic stories that portray decrim effects negatively, but careful with their own conduct/interactions with PWUD.”
Peers in the Interior Health engagement session also noted that there have been newer people selling drugs in the community since decriminalization, as others noted a need to legalize drugs — a step that would ensure a regulated drug supply.
The most pointed comments come from the First Nations Health Authority, whose project manager noted in a June report that decriminalization didn’t appear to change the approach to substance use and that, based on engagement sessions, more engagement was necessary.
“Also made me think how these proposed legislative conversations are really showing that substance use is still not seen as a public health matter, as enforcement is still the only solution,” the comment reads.
The project manager noted that most concerns either have other solutions (in the case of needles or other paraphernalia being left behind) or are already illegal (in the case of violence or vandalism).
“So to put laws on use shows that even the government doesn't see [substance use] as a health matter. Also seeing there needs to be a lot more in the realm of anti-stigma campaigns and storytelling to the public,” the staffer wrote.
Other comments elsewhere similarly reference incorrect narratives around decriminalization, with Interior Health’s project manager citing as a challenge: “Ongoing misinformation and confusion from general public and municipalities regarding purpose, goals, impact of decriminalization.”
In the last year-and-a-half, a right-wing campaign against harm reduction has ramped up, particularly in the pages of the National Post and in segments on Global News. Fuelling the movement against scantly available safe supply programs, as well as the Drug User Liberation Front’s compassion club, now shut down by police, are “addictions” physicians, recovery program operators, right-wing politicians and media personalities, and at least one billionaire.
In response, rather than standing up for its policies — already criticized by drug users and others as inadequate half-measures — is capitulating to their demands, including introducing a law to effectively dismantle its decriminalization project. (The law has been challenged in court, which has put a pause on it until the challenge can be heard.)
No impact on law enforcement
The reports filed by project managers are broken down into several sections, with space for detailing their engagement activities, health system policy changes, impacts on the health system, knowledge exchange and relationships with law enforcement.
While some reports’ sections on law enforcement are redacted in full or in part, one report indicates resistance to decriminalization among at least some police.
“Feedback from West Shore RCMP after 3 presentations was not overly positive,” reads a comment in Island Health’s May report. “The impression left by the presenters is that decrim is supported by some but that differences of opinion exist about the nature of drug use and how we address PWUD.”
Fraser Health’s project manager, meanwhile, reported that no law enforcement agencies had accepted support that they were offered. In February, March and June, law enforcement in that region reported no impact of decriminalization on their work.
Some, however, did comment that there was a lack of resources for those who asked for them.
Decriminalization didn’t end stigma
Peers, too, referenced in the Interior Health engagement a lack of resources, including concerns that detox facilities aren’t equipped for benzodiazepine withdrawal — benzos are one of two drugs (the other being alcohol) with potentially fatal withdrawal — and no expanded access to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) drugs like methadone.
In more rural areas, that latter concern can be particularly frustrating. One person commented that Grand Forks is the only place in their area with an OAT provider, and they were forced to choose between staying at home and staying in a shelter and taking medication: “lots of folks staying at the shelter in order to access medications.”
For those still using the illicit supply in rural communities, it was similarly impossible to only buy 2.5g if they had to go to a different community to get their drugs.
Sprinkled throughout the reports are comments that indicate the primary intent behind decriminalization — at least from a grassroots standpoint — wasn’t being addressed.
“Harassment more geared towards houselessness / encampments,” read one comment in the Interior Health peer engagement report, with another noting a “big ‘crackdown’ on encampments” and a police raid of an overdose prevention site in Prince George.
And one woman said in the session that her drugs were confiscated even though she had less than 2.5g, as police don’t use scales to determine quantities.