Thx for amplifying the US criminologist’s tough but astute observations about the concentrations of addicts, drug dealers and harm reduction etc services in the Downtown Eastside and what that means/creates.
Much gets written/discussed about policing, toxic drug supply, more recovery beds, etc but little writing/discussion is about judges inserting personal values into this toxic drug crisis via their interpretations of certain sections of Canada’s constitution, and overturning decisions by elected reps, including elected BC NDP MLAs. A prime example is the judge’s decision to knock down the NDP govt.’s attempt in late 2023 to get rid of open drug use in many public outdoor locations. This single judge weighed the competing issues in his decision yes but ultimately came down in favour of allowing drug use in these public locations by knocking down the NDP govt.’s attempt to deal with drug use in these public locations. This is big time judicial overreach because the B.C. cabinet weighed these same issues and came to another conclusion but we have a judge who beats down that decision of the BC cabinet, etc.
There are tough, difficult trade-offs with pretty well every aspect of acting on the toxic drug crisis but this utter BS (I think) reflected in this judge’s decision and other related decisions of judges that the B.C. cabinet and all the senior managers behind them don’t spend a lot of time weighing these trade-offs when they come up with a policy or program decision is judicial overreach writ large.
I agree, Derek, the judge's intervention on decriminalization proved devastating for the Eby administration, because the situation deteriorated by the week as Victoria appealed and ultimately lost, as I recall. I think, with 20-20 hindsight, the government would have been wise to just cancel the exemption from Ottawa so it would be clear BC had returned to the status quo. It might then have been obvious that fentanyl, rather than decriminalization, was driving the disorder and the police could have used whatever measures they had in the past to manage overall. But Lehman makes excellent points, and I have to agree, to my shame, with his assessment of the Downtown Eastside.
Thx for amplifying the US criminologist’s tough but astute observations about the concentrations of addicts, drug dealers and harm reduction etc services in the Downtown Eastside and what that means/creates.
Much gets written/discussed about policing, toxic drug supply, more recovery beds, etc but little writing/discussion is about judges inserting personal values into this toxic drug crisis via their interpretations of certain sections of Canada’s constitution, and overturning decisions by elected reps, including elected BC NDP MLAs. A prime example is the judge’s decision to knock down the NDP govt.’s attempt in late 2023 to get rid of open drug use in many public outdoor locations. This single judge weighed the competing issues in his decision yes but ultimately came down in favour of allowing drug use in these public locations by knocking down the NDP govt.’s attempt to deal with drug use in these public locations. This is big time judicial overreach because the B.C. cabinet weighed these same issues and came to another conclusion but we have a judge who beats down that decision of the BC cabinet, etc.
There are tough, difficult trade-offs with pretty well every aspect of acting on the toxic drug crisis but this utter BS (I think) reflected in this judge’s decision and other related decisions of judges that the B.C. cabinet and all the senior managers behind them don’t spend a lot of time weighing these trade-offs when they come up with a policy or program decision is judicial overreach writ large.
I agree, Derek, the judge's intervention on decriminalization proved devastating for the Eby administration, because the situation deteriorated by the week as Victoria appealed and ultimately lost, as I recall. I think, with 20-20 hindsight, the government would have been wise to just cancel the exemption from Ottawa so it would be clear BC had returned to the status quo. It might then have been obvious that fentanyl, rather than decriminalization, was driving the disorder and the police could have used whatever measures they had in the past to manage overall. But Lehman makes excellent points, and I have to agree, to my shame, with his assessment of the Downtown Eastside.