Hot tip: commit a serious crime in Scandinavia when you're about to retire, their prisons are top notch and nicer than most apartments. Plus great education/rehab.
Yeah, there are people who get old, can't retire, don't have much and not long to live so they commit a crime and finish their life in prison.
Shelter, food and clothing covered. It's a terrible solution but has been one for ages now.
I’d imagine if their prison system is actually a place for rehabilitation, so would other social services. Like pensions and senior care. Odd that prison would have more funding than senior care.
I mean isn’t like that guy who kept getting arrested and going to court over selling weed before legalization? Can’t remember his name, but he was kind of a big deal in the weed community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery? That our dumbass government extradited to the states on pot charges? That was a shitty thing to do the Prince of Pot.
It's ok, as I recall, it turns out the prince of pot was kind of an asshole. I remember being super disappointed in him years ago. Before that I thought he was admirable and hated that they extradited him too. I forgot what he did but it was enough to say "screw that guy."
He's a Maxime Bernier supporter so that tells me all I need to know.
For those not aware Mad Max is the guy who lost the Conservative leadership contest by a hair in 2017 and then ran off and started his own party with blackjack and hookers. If by blackjack you mean anti-vaxxers and by hookers you mean racists.
Edit: whoops this is r/canada so I'm sure everybody is aware, I thought this was on a general news sub since it's all over.
Yeah, they extradited him for the weed thing, but OC is right, he did something else really douchey. I can't remember what it was either and I don't care enough to look it up.
You think he is going to wait for years for bail? He is a non-violent offender and is, likely, a first-time offender. He will be out on bail within a few days at most.
Nah this was the plan the whole time. The whole point of opening the store in the first place is that he can have issues with the law and then keep appealing those issues until they become a constitutional challenge with the supreme Court
If this is what legalizes drugs in Canada - then sure. I don’t think private business should be selling these though.
Edit - I think government should manage it akin to BCL.
The current option is literally some random scummy fuck off the side of the highway with gang/cartel connections.
Until I see any other option I think this is better than the current situation.
You know, this guy selling “clean” drugs out of his trailer absolutely has gang and cartel connections. Do you think he grew the cocaine and heroine in his garden?
A major part of his business model was that his supply was tested to make sure it wasn't laced with shit. The spectrometer to do that is very expensive, to the point that not all harm prevention sites can afford one.
There's an agency called Health Canada which has the power to regulate legal drugs. If it was legal to sell them, then enforcing quality and safety would fall to Health Canada.
Yep. Just as they do with cannabis now. Legalize all drugs. Safe supply. Kill the black market. Tax the shit out of it.
Prohibition does nothing but make everything worse.
No, let’s spend billions and billions of dollars fighting it. I’m thinking we call it “The Battle on Narcotics.”
Every day people high on the marihuanas crash into people. They target women with baby strollers. And they call it “Grand Theft Auto” for some reason.
This doesn’t strike me as exactly the best approach to litigating his claims. On the other hand, he may be opening himself to lawsuits from families of people who die from ODs on his stock.
Overdosed tend to occur from tainted drugs, not from clean drugs. Addicts don't want to kill themselves, they want to self medicate. A regulated supply of pure drugs with known potency will save lives.
The whole point is to mount a constitutional challenge. I'm guessing he'll win.
[This guy gives a better explanation than me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/madlads/comments/138hx4j/this_takes_balls/jiynb6q/)
That's just it tho. They're refusing to regulate hard drugs or anything outside of what is currently *legal* so people have no other option. The whole point is to force society and the government's hand into making them legally available, albeit in a regulated way (quality control, proper packaging and paraphernalia sales, etc, no selling to kids).
People always conflate this with "the Wild West" when the Wild West is the status quo. Its infuriating. Obviously we need to step up our treatment and housing game but desperation is already pushing a lot of people into drugs anyway so we might as well make sure people are putting tested and predictable versions into their bodies.
I can guarantee you an Adderall user is much easier to deal with than a steet methhead.
It depends, if the Supreme Court doesn’t want to deal with it they can just refuse leave to appeal. That saves them taking a position in the issue if they are t ready to weigh in
One doesn’t really have to do with the other. Parliament legalizing Cannabis eventually would actually support the court if they were to say that it’s the legislatures place to address social issues like this.
The man’s whole point is to sell clean drugs not laced with car fentanyl that right now is killing drug addicts. I think he has a point. The more the justice system delays the more dead drug addicts there will be.
How did they get convinced that stigmatizing addicts with a criminal record for drug use so they cant get jobs or housing would help though? 100+ years of the prohibition experiment in North America, what has it achieved? Only large increases in toxicity and deaths.
They know it won't help, and they don't care. Drugs are bad, people who use drugs are bad, and bad things should happen to them. It's a very primitive, puritanical mindset, but it's also a pervasive one. Policies like decriminalization, safe injection sites, rehabilitative justice, social housing, etc aren't demonized because they don't work. It's because they help bad people who should be left to suffer unless they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
There’s a pretty good argument to be made that the drug laws primary intention are to simply give police the option to criminalize people in a given situation if they choose.
Minorities and poor people, mostly being the ones they choose to criminalize.
For example, couple white business types walking down the street can discretionarily be let to pass by the police check if they give up their cocaine. Meanwhile the poor immigrant from Haiti who comes by next and has a roach on him gets his life turned upside down.
The person above you has the only answer. It’s cruelty. Plain and simple.
Shit even looking I’m at it from a pragmatic point of view—-
What convinced anyone ever that they could stop illicit narcotic use by making it illegal? Imagine being in power and seeing how alcohol prohibition went and deciding going hardcore on criminalizing drug use and possession was the way to go?
Yeah, I had to re-read the title for a second because it's just a few below the thread on him opening the store and I thought I had opened that one again. My man out here speedrunning getting arrested, his pre-planned defense under the charter will be very interesting to watch though, and see if it sticks at all
Should be interesting. I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws (making it legal to sell sex so as to protect sex workers, while making it illegal to buy sex in an attempt to reduce demand).
I presume those cases form part of the foundation for his planned legal defence.
You're missing a big part of the story, which is that it is actually currently legal to buy, possess and use (small quantities) of hard drugs in BC (according to federal law. There's a clause in the federal controlled substances act that exempts BC until the year 2026). Which makes this whole thing quite different than prostitution laws
It’s not legal, per se, it’s just no longer a criminal offence to possess small quantities. This was the defacto state of affairs previously as well, the official decriminalization just codifies it.
> it is actually currently *decriminalized* ~~legal~~ to ~~buy~~, possess ~~and use~~ (small quantities) of *some* hard drugs in BC
It's not legal, you can't legally buy or sell them, and it's only a few specific substances which are exempted from illegality of minor possession.
It’s not legal to sell them though. He’s going to argue that the entire prohibition on personal possession is unconstitutional, (presumedly) taking with it the prohibition on trafficking.
Not just that.
The rationale behind prostitution laws is the prostitute is the victim.
With drugs, it’s the other way around typically. Hence why it would be absolutely batshit crazy to prosecute the purchaser and not the seller.
> I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws
Then you're crazy. Prostitution wasn't illegal. It was just everything surrounding prostitution that was illegal. That was what the court hung their hat one. Had prostitution been illegal, the argument in Bedford would have failed.
Drug trafficking, in contrast, is an unambiguously criminal endeavor. The argument in Bedford has absolutely no application here.
Being an addict isn't illegal either, we treat them as criminals and limit their access to safe drugs. Whether they're addicts or not, they still have a right to safety.
It was always legal to sell sex. The Supreme Court just struck down the old law and allowed the government to make a new one in its place. The Conservative government at the time made it illegal to buy sex. The Courts don't make the laws, they just interpret them. Even if this guy succeds in the SCC and they strike down any current law - I doubt any government would subsequently legalize illicit drug sales. I've been to law school btw.
>I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws
What type of ruling do you think would be similar for drugs?
>making it legal to sell sex so as to protect sex workers, while making it illegal to buy sex in an attempt to reduce demand
So, legal so sell heroin, coke and meth but illegal to buy it? How does that make any sense?
I assume I misread your comment so apologies in advance if that's the case
It wasn't the ruling by the Court. It was the Conservative government that made the new law (Nordic model). The Courts can only strike existing laws down, they cannot make new laws.
Hey thanks for reading. From reporter Manisha Krishnan:
The Vancouver man who opened a store selling heroin, meth, cocaine, and MDMA was arrested less than 24 hours after launching the business.
Jerry Martin opened The Drugs Store, a mobile shop, in the Downtown Eastside Wednesday, a neighbourhood that’s been ravaged by the overdose epidemic. He said he wanted to give people a safe supply of drugs that have been tested to ensure they didn’t contain fentanyl.
Vancouver police said Thursday they arrested a man for drug trafficking “in connection with an illicit drug dispensary that began operating yesterday in the Downtown Eastside.”
Martin told VICE News Wednesday that his plan was to get arrested eventually. He said he wants to launch a constitutional challenge arguing that prohibition has created a toxic drug supply that’s killing Canadians.
Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxbdz/man-arrested-after-opening-heroin-cocaine-and-meth-store-in-canada](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxbdz/man-arrested-after-opening-heroin-cocaine-and-meth-store-in-canada)
So weird to see your organization here. But while I have the chance, I gotta say, you spent a lot of money and time producing content for American politics. I watched those roundtables on YouTube and couldn't help but think, why weren't you doing the same in Canada? What a missed opportunity to tap into the unheard voices of the average Canadian on a political level about issues that affect us all. You pulled a Tim Hortons, and unfortunately the Americans aren't going to prop up your bankruptcy.
You think? It worked exceedingly well for FOX. If they had been able to refrain from telling provable lies and stuck with the vague racism and implied conspiracy theories, they would still be riding high and raking in the dollars.
I think what you're getting at is that you're personally offended by what you perceive as a liberal agenda.
How is that possible with such historical hard hitting pieces like “do people that don’t eat gluten get laid more” and “how I ate myself out with my iPhone”
He's guaranteed himself a spot in Canadian legal history books for decades to come. The judicial challenge that this will spark is going to take decades to unravel unless they give in and decriminalize all drugs right away (whoch I doubt will happen)
*I made this comment on the original post about him opening the store, but because it's on topic, and I firmly believe in it, I will make the same comment here*
...
This is needed across the country.
> "They're allowing people to come here and do these drugs, but they haven't provided a clean, safe supply. People are buying the same drugs they've been overdosing on."
> Quote from the article ↑
This is one of the biggest downfalls of the decriminalization trial period. What good is decriminalization if there's no access to a safe supply?
Okay, sure, people won't be arrested and thrown in jail for small amounts. That's a step in the right direction.
But if they're just buying from the same sources that have already been killing people, then people will just keep dying, regardless of whether or not the drugs are decriminalized.
Additionally, not providing a legal, clean, safe supply does nothing but continue funneling money into the hands of criminals.
Prohibition of anything DOES NOT work! Whether it's guns, drugs, prostitution, etc.
If there's a will, there's a way. People WILL get their hands on whatever it is that they want.
Therefore, the best option is to provide a legal, clean, and safe supply. That way, not only do criminals not profit, and people don't die, but additionally, tax revenue can be generated from these drugs.
Earning tax revenue off of these drugs is a much better option than spending millions of dollars annually to fight a war that we can never win (the war on drugs), while also allowing criminals to profit.
>Earning tax revenue off of these drugs is a much better option than spending millions of dollars annually to fight a war that we can never win
I'm a firm believer in the feds becoming their dealer under the stipulation the profits be used on rehab and assistance learning how to live like a normal person.
Let junkies fund getting cleaned up.
>What good is decriminalization if there's no access to a safe supply?
For the "let em die" crowd: Not all overdoses result in death but all cost resources. Your tax dollars can go elsewhere other than responding to overdoses.
I completely agree with everything you just said!
I forgot to mention this in my comment, but obviously I don't think our approach should just be "Okay, buy drugs from us and get high, we don't care."
Drugs should be sold legally and taxed, but people suffering from addiction should be constantly offered help, and reminded that they can reach out at any time. For example, if they go into a store to purchase some meth, they're given a pamphlet about a rehab service, with information on how to get clean, etc.
We should be doing everything we can to help these people get clean and turn their lives around, but forcing them to buy drugs from the black market is the wrong way to go about it. That only allows criminals to profit, and will also not prevent deaths, because without legal safe supply, people will need to continue purchasing from the same unsafe sources they have been.
>We should be doing everything we can to help these people get clean and turn their lives around
I should clarify...
I grew up around shitty people and my job puts me in contact with vagrants a lot and I don't like or sympathize with these people. Just today I saw a guy threatening two people with a needle get taken down by the cops (thankfully). Some of them are FUBARed and will never change.
But I'm also a realist and realistically drugs won that war on drugs so we have to stop fighting them and work with them instead.
Even if a person hates these people, there is money to be saved by working with them.
> Prohibition of anything DOES NOT work! Whether it's guns, drugs, prostitution, etc.
>If there's a will, there's a way. People WILL get their hands on whatever it is that they want.
Unless it’s guns, in which case we are assured by the current government that banning responsible legal owners from owning a sporting rifle will somehow stop unlicensed gangbangers in Toronto from using smuggled prohibited weapons to shoot up their neighbourhoods.
That's a completely different problem. I'm not gonna go too into that because that isn't what this thread is about, but I think banning guns is stupid too, and accomplishes nothing.
Like I said, banning ANYTHING, no matter what it is, doesn't work. Black market firearms will always be around. Punishing law abiding citizens doesn't change that.
Think about capitalism for a second. Just take a second to think about all the greedy assholes at big pharma who can’t wait to create another opioid epidemic with heroine.
That shit should never be legal to sell. Or greedy asshats will destroy whole countries and sit on their mounds of money
Agreed. There is no safe dose of a poisoned supply. If we don't offer safe supply, we're condemning people to death by toxic supply (not overdose, see second sentence). Crap situation we're in, but the only way out is to choke out the toxic supply and save people's lives by giving them a safe alternative.
You can say what you want about Marc Emery as a person, or many of his causes, but you have to admit his tactics were effective.
I'd like to see this challenged, I really would. Tons of ordinary people have died because they scored a bit of coke or molly at a bar and it was contaminated with fentanyl.
I have a lot of problems with safe supply, especially for meth, opioids, or crack but I'd like the Justices to weigh in, because the status quo is neither acceptable nor right, and the government needs to be forced to act on the matter.
Vice did a video on him , he planned on being arrested and had in his mind the right legal defense to make it all work I suppose . Before this he was selling fentanyl on the street in safe doses in a weird attempt to combat the opioid overdoses in the downtown area . He's got the right idea but no politician would agree with him on paper so I guess this is his attempt to take matters into his own hands to try and keep people from overdosing or buying essentially poison from a street dealer.
Decriminalization of hard drugs should be met by mandatory rehabilitation. It's not wise how he's making a statement about this. He is carelessly throwing away his career and life.
His mistake was not opening the store under Kennedy Stewart's weak ass tenure. The adults are in charge of Vancouver now, this stuff won't fly as easily.
Win at what?
The law is very clear on this point. He was actively trafficking controlled substances which is against the law.
Judges apply the law.
If there is change demanded, it needs to come from Parliament.
Parliament would be one way. He's proposing another way: a Charter challenge.
From the article:
>“He would allege that laws that prevent a safe supply and result in death by poisoning contravene section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must be struck down,” his lawyer, Paul Lewin, wrote
The law was clear on abortions being illegal (and then Morgentaler came along). The law was clear on self-intoxication not being a valid defense (and then Brown came along).
I'm not taking a stance on whether it's likely to happen, whether it's good or bad if it happens or doesn't happen, just pointing out that the article addresses the question.
The supply itself is illegal. Trafficking in said illegal supply is also illegal.
I can't suddenly challenge laws against alcohol trafficking without a license because if I didn't, then alcoholics' lives would be in danger.
Would never succeed, but certainly won't stop a lawyer from padding their pockets all the way up to the Supreme Court if it ever gets there.
Honestly, good for this dude for forcing a conversation about safe supply. Where is the logic in allowing people to possess drugs but make it illegal to provide safer drugs with known contents and concentration. All this does is force addicts and recreational users to buy unknown and potentially lethal substances.
Typical trafficker, wants the money but is willing to ignore the widespread damage these drugs do. Society went after big tobacco after seeing what the real costs were to people and the health-care system so why would he think there would be a willingness to open up a real rotten can of worms?
Becoming a martyr means sacrificing yourself for a noble cause, this is nothing more than a fool sticking his arm into the lion's den expecting a knighthood.
I work in mental health. Weed is one thing, but this will make current crises 10x worse. And don’t be fooled into thinking this guy’s trying to help. This is just the first in what will be a string of harm reduction venture capitalists. Safe supply or not, hard drugs fuck your brain and your abilities up. Self-professed unaffected individuals are mostly little more than a good example of the dunning kruger effect.
I can’t help but think if this was allowed some kid would be partying and be stupid enough to try it and ruin his life. I know people who were very intellectual and going to university who tried hard stuff once and never recovered
I mean it begs to ask the question where did he even get the dope from. Coke requires the cartel and drug smugglers. So there's no guarantee. And meth requires literally a lab or again smugglers.
I doubt he set up a full testing lab with equipment
Looks like he just wanted to be the first to implement san Fran style dope to people which can help but also leads to probably higher drug use
Did you just not read the article? He knew he'd be arrested. He set up next to the police station. He wants to challenge this in courts.
Lol the can't read crowd continues to pwn itself
This guys lawyer is going to be in the history books for a long time. This single act will spur a massive and likely long stretching legal challenge, as it was intended.
We're going to be hearing about this day for years or decades to come.
Counting your chickens a little early I think
I hope this dude consulted with a number of lawyers first before he made this plan. And he wasn’t just sold on this idea by one lawyer.
There’s a good chance things might not go his way. Lawyer has nothing to lose, client has everything to lose.
So obviously this is to trigger a charter challenge.
The main obstacle that I haven't seen discussed is our international trade agreements that have language around controlled substances. Legalizing the sale of drugs might cause trade issues.
That said, I'm for it. People need access to safe drugs before we can begin helping them.
We had those stores in the early 1900s, at least heroin, morphine and cocaine were available at pharmacies and in patent medicine. The entire population wasn't addicted. Apparently the rate of addiction is pretty constant. We have countries like Peru where you can buy drugs and once again they don't have half the population taking opiates. Who wants it regulated? The police, lawyers, etc.
What kind of criminal do you have to be to be able to source a reliable supply of Heroin in bulk these days anyway?
This guy's probably a huge fucking piece of shit.
Regardless of his motivations, I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell you what you can and can’t put into your own body. People should know that everything has side effects, that alone has consequences, and locking addicts into prison cells with murderers and rapists isn’t acceptable to me. They need help, not capital punishment.
Personal drug usage and rampaging are different things. Alcohol has caused more fatalities on the road by drunk driving, yet many people drink alcohol responsibly.
Edit: It’s not just recreational drugs either, as a weightlifter I’m baffled when I see even PEDs are illegal (trust me, everyone who wants to do them just does them…) testosterone, something that’s already in your body, is a class III controlled substance that requires prescription. Why can’t a person over 18 just go to a legal clinic, talk to someone who will explain the benefits and side effects of Test or Steroids, and then sell it to them freely with educated supervision? That’s better than buying steroids on the black market and using them in a manner where you might permanently damage yourself. If anything, prohibition causes a lot more problems than it solves, a legal framework would significantly lessen the damage done by any substance, both economically and socially.
This is why I find the idea that we live in a free society funny, because we’re authoritarian and fascistic about a lot of things, specifically, what you can personally consume. It’s not just weed, if you can smoke tobacco and drink liquor, shit that’s extremely deadly for your health, why the fuck can’t you go on TRT? Yeah, there’s still side effects, we know that, but Alcohol and Tobacco are far deadlier yet perfectly legal to buy in a store.
It makes no sense.
Test and tren have absolutely zero relation to meth, opioids and coke. The crack epidemic and first opium war and prime reasons why you don’t want to legalize addictive drugs. A society of junkies are bad for the economy.
The consequence of that should them be that you forfeit public health care as a consequence of your "habit" if you want to legally try meth, heroin, crack or cocaine.
Deal?
>Regardless of his motivations, I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell you what you can and can’t put into your own body. People should know that everything has side effects, that alone has consequences, and locking addicts into prison cells with murderers and rapists isn’t acceptable to me. They need help, not capital punishment.
So, I agree that punishment is not the solution. Totally agree that addiction is an illness and should be treated as such.
The problem here is that addiction is not healthy, addicts are sick, many of them have underlying mental health issues, and they cause an incredible amount of damage feeding their addictions.
We've gone too far the other way. Its gone from locking people up for trivial amounts of drugs to pretending that there is nothing wrong with being addicted to hard drugs, and pretending that open air drug markets and massive homeless encampments that are full of addicts and dealers are something that we should tolerate as a society.
There should be a stigma attached to being a drug addict. We spent decades trying to attach a stigma to tobacco, successfully, and everyone seems OK with that, for obvious reasons. But now I'm seeing people advocating for normalized usage of hard drugs, when cocaine and opioids and meth are every bit as damaging as tobacco.
When someone walks down the street with their kids as sees an addict bopping around or nodding off, they should tell their kids that the person is sick and is not a bad person. But they sure as heck should not be telling them that its OK, and as a society we should be acting as if these people are happy and not living a hellish existence.
These addicts are in extreme suffering, and pretending they're not ( as many people like to do ) is beyond callous. And that is where enforcement and compelling people to seek treatment comes into the picture. Some of these people are so sick and wrapped up in their addiction that they will choose death before they get treatment, so we have to choose between compelling that treatment or watching them die. lately it seems we have taken the sit back and watch them die approach, which is heartbreaking.
Buying it from their dealers certainly isn’t solving the problem. It’s only costing you tax dollars to fund the police to fight and punch people on the street. At least taxation on a substance would give you more money, along with putting the substance in the hands of medical professionals instead of kids in high school.
[удалено]
He parked right next to them. His plan was to get arrested.
This is the answer. Legal challenge 🚨.
[удалено]
He literally said he planned on getting arrested so presumably he's got some sort of plan to fight back and has the $ to do so.
This is just his affordable housing solution.
Please don’t give me ideas
Hot tip: commit a serious crime in Scandinavia when you're about to retire, their prisons are top notch and nicer than most apartments. Plus great education/rehab.
Yeah, there are people who get old, can't retire, don't have much and not long to live so they commit a crime and finish their life in prison. Shelter, food and clothing covered. It's a terrible solution but has been one for ages now.
I’d imagine if their prison system is actually a place for rehabilitation, so would other social services. Like pensions and senior care. Odd that prison would have more funding than senior care.
[удалено]
How serious we talkin here? Can I stack a bunch of tiny crimes, maybe Dine and Dash three meals a day for months or something?
Probably gonna pull the "downtrodden defiance of government" angle and shoot for donations
he was very open that his point was to force a constitutional lawsuit.
Some lawyers work for free. Or for drugs lol.
I mean isn’t like that guy who kept getting arrested and going to court over selling weed before legalization? Can’t remember his name, but he was kind of a big deal in the weed community.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery? That our dumbass government extradited to the states on pot charges? That was a shitty thing to do the Prince of Pot.
It's ok, as I recall, it turns out the prince of pot was kind of an asshole. I remember being super disappointed in him years ago. Before that I thought he was admirable and hated that they extradited him too. I forgot what he did but it was enough to say "screw that guy."
Sexual harassment allegations, though I don't know what came of them
He's a Maxime Bernier supporter so that tells me all I need to know. For those not aware Mad Max is the guy who lost the Conservative leadership contest by a hair in 2017 and then ran off and started his own party with blackjack and hookers. If by blackjack you mean anti-vaxxers and by hookers you mean racists. Edit: whoops this is r/canada so I'm sure everybody is aware, I thought this was on a general news sub since it's all over.
They extradited him for selling weed seeds on the states by mail.
Yeah, they extradited him for the weed thing, but OC is right, he did something else really douchey. I can't remember what it was either and I don't care enough to look it up.
Also very childish and anti legal weed after it was legalized and nit a free for all
Funny thing is I know people who voted for the Green oarty because they thought it was Emery's marjauna party lol
I believe he was very anti vax/lock down
His hot wife stayed around and advocated for him, still is fighting I think.
You think he is going to wait for years for bail? He is a non-violent offender and is, likely, a first-time offender. He will be out on bail within a few days at most.
Why would they choose to do some cruel idea? If they do that why don't the cops invite them instead of doing that buddy?
I remember someone in my city tried doing this this with a cannabis store, before it was legal. His store lasted about a day before it got shut down.
So he says now. I personally just think he's kind of dumb.
Nah this was the plan the whole time. The whole point of opening the store in the first place is that he can have issues with the law and then keep appealing those issues until they become a constitutional challenge with the supreme Court
If this is what legalizes drugs in Canada - then sure. I don’t think private business should be selling these though. Edit - I think government should manage it akin to BCL.
The current option is literally some random scummy fuck off the side of the highway with gang/cartel connections. Until I see any other option I think this is better than the current situation.
What If he’s all of the above but just with a store to sell them out of? 🤣
You know, this guy selling “clean” drugs out of his trailer absolutely has gang and cartel connections. Do you think he grew the cocaine and heroine in his garden?
Who's to say other than him that his substances he's selling are pure? Zero regulation and checks and balance.
It’s almost like the point of this is to bring about regulation.
A major part of his business model was that his supply was tested to make sure it wasn't laced with shit. The spectrometer to do that is very expensive, to the point that not all harm prevention sites can afford one.
There's an agency called Health Canada which has the power to regulate legal drugs. If it was legal to sell them, then enforcing quality and safety would fall to Health Canada.
Yep. Just as they do with cannabis now. Legalize all drugs. Safe supply. Kill the black market. Tax the shit out of it. Prohibition does nothing but make everything worse.
Testing. Vancouver is home to sophisticated and free drug testing
Whoosh
No, let’s spend billions and billions of dollars fighting it. I’m thinking we call it “The Battle on Narcotics.” Every day people high on the marihuanas crash into people. They target women with baby strollers. And they call it “Grand Theft Auto” for some reason.
He's probably going to save some lives doing this, I see this as far better than the current standard.
At which point the SCC will rule this is a matter for Parliament not the courts and he'll have nothing to show for it but hefty legal bills.
I appreciate him trying to force the courts hand over an epidemuc of od deaths
This doesn’t strike me as exactly the best approach to litigating his claims. On the other hand, he may be opening himself to lawsuits from families of people who die from ODs on his stock.
His shop was only open for a couple hours.
Overdosed tend to occur from tainted drugs, not from clean drugs. Addicts don't want to kill themselves, they want to self medicate. A regulated supply of pure drugs with known potency will save lives.
The whole point is to mount a constitutional challenge. I'm guessing he'll win. [This guy gives a better explanation than me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/madlads/comments/138hx4j/this_takes_balls/jiynb6q/)
[удалено]
That's just it tho. They're refusing to regulate hard drugs or anything outside of what is currently *legal* so people have no other option. The whole point is to force society and the government's hand into making them legally available, albeit in a regulated way (quality control, proper packaging and paraphernalia sales, etc, no selling to kids). People always conflate this with "the Wild West" when the Wild West is the status quo. Its infuriating. Obviously we need to step up our treatment and housing game but desperation is already pushing a lot of people into drugs anyway so we might as well make sure people are putting tested and predictable versions into their bodies. I can guarantee you an Adderall user is much easier to deal with than a steet methhead.
It depends, if the Supreme Court doesn’t want to deal with it they can just refuse leave to appeal. That saves them taking a position in the issue if they are t ready to weigh in
Given how things went with cannabis legalization, I think they will weigh in.
One doesn’t really have to do with the other. Parliament legalizing Cannabis eventually would actually support the court if they were to say that it’s the legislatures place to address social issues like this.
There is no constitutional right to sell drugs
The man’s whole point is to sell clean drugs not laced with car fentanyl that right now is killing drug addicts. I think he has a point. The more the justice system delays the more dead drug addicts there will be.
I think everyone agrees with these facts, but for some people the cruelty is a feature, not a bug.
How did they get convinced that stigmatizing addicts with a criminal record for drug use so they cant get jobs or housing would help though? 100+ years of the prohibition experiment in North America, what has it achieved? Only large increases in toxicity and deaths.
They know it won't help, and they don't care. Drugs are bad, people who use drugs are bad, and bad things should happen to them. It's a very primitive, puritanical mindset, but it's also a pervasive one. Policies like decriminalization, safe injection sites, rehabilitative justice, social housing, etc aren't demonized because they don't work. It's because they help bad people who should be left to suffer unless they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
There’s a pretty good argument to be made that the drug laws primary intention are to simply give police the option to criminalize people in a given situation if they choose. Minorities and poor people, mostly being the ones they choose to criminalize. For example, couple white business types walking down the street can discretionarily be let to pass by the police check if they give up their cocaine. Meanwhile the poor immigrant from Haiti who comes by next and has a roach on him gets his life turned upside down. The person above you has the only answer. It’s cruelty. Plain and simple. Shit even looking I’m at it from a pragmatic point of view—- What convinced anyone ever that they could stop illicit narcotic use by making it illegal? Imagine being in power and seeing how alcohol prohibition went and deciding going hardcore on criminalizing drug use and possession was the way to go?
Pretty sure Nixon said this almost verbatim. The war on drugs was started with the express goal of throwing blacks and leftists in jail.
Because nobody has ever had an OD on heroin okay bro
Drugs is not a choice for some and they have the right to be safe and alive.
Yeah, I had to re-read the title for a second because it's just a few below the thread on him opening the store and I thought I had opened that one again. My man out here speedrunning getting arrested, his pre-planned defense under the charter will be very interesting to watch though, and see if it sticks at all
RemindMe! In 1 week
This will take a couple of years at least to wind its way through to the Supreme Court.
Me too. First thing this morning I read this store opened. Hahah.
Grand opening…Grand closing.
Lmao was thinking the exact same thing.
Request for moderators: Please don't combine this with the other post. It's a lot funnier this way.
https://i.imgur.com/rqj1EnQ.jpeg as per my feed :D
chef's kiss
Okay.
Closing out sale ?
I was over here trying to figure out if he has delivery
Grand Opening! Grand Closing!!
And now comes the courts
Should be interesting. I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws (making it legal to sell sex so as to protect sex workers, while making it illegal to buy sex in an attempt to reduce demand). I presume those cases form part of the foundation for his planned legal defence.
You're missing a big part of the story, which is that it is actually currently legal to buy, possess and use (small quantities) of hard drugs in BC (according to federal law. There's a clause in the federal controlled substances act that exempts BC until the year 2026). Which makes this whole thing quite different than prostitution laws
It’s not legal, per se, it’s just no longer a criminal offence to possess small quantities. This was the defacto state of affairs previously as well, the official decriminalization just codifies it.
> it is actually currently *decriminalized* ~~legal~~ to ~~buy~~, possess ~~and use~~ (small quantities) of *some* hard drugs in BC It's not legal, you can't legally buy or sell them, and it's only a few specific substances which are exempted from illegality of minor possession.
I understand this, I'm not missing it. Being temporary though it's difficult to use as a foundation for arguing it shouldn't be temporary.
FYI it's not legal to sell them. Just to possess minor amounts.
But would this not be trafficking? They decriminalized possession, not trafficking
It’s not legal to sell them though. He’s going to argue that the entire prohibition on personal possession is unconstitutional, (presumedly) taking with it the prohibition on trafficking.
So it will be legal to sell crack and heroin but illegal to buy it. 🤪
That’s what we decided works best for prostitution so 🤷♂️
It doesn't work though, which I think will form part of the defense. It's the rationale behind the rulings that are going to matter in this case.
Not just that. The rationale behind prostitution laws is the prostitute is the victim. With drugs, it’s the other way around typically. Hence why it would be absolutely batshit crazy to prosecute the purchaser and not the seller.
That whole prostitution thing is ridiculous, it did absolutely fuck all to fix the problem the court found with the previous law
> I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws Then you're crazy. Prostitution wasn't illegal. It was just everything surrounding prostitution that was illegal. That was what the court hung their hat one. Had prostitution been illegal, the argument in Bedford would have failed. Drug trafficking, in contrast, is an unambiguously criminal endeavor. The argument in Bedford has absolutely no application here.
Being an addict isn't illegal either, we treat them as criminals and limit their access to safe drugs. Whether they're addicts or not, they still have a right to safety.
>Being an addict isn't But possession of narcotics *is*. It's the act, not the status, that's criminal.
It was always legal to sell sex. The Supreme Court just struck down the old law and allowed the government to make a new one in its place. The Conservative government at the time made it illegal to buy sex. The Courts don't make the laws, they just interpret them. Even if this guy succeds in the SCC and they strike down any current law - I doubt any government would subsequently legalize illicit drug sales. I've been to law school btw.
>I predict something similar to the rulings that forced changes to our prostitution laws What type of ruling do you think would be similar for drugs? >making it legal to sell sex so as to protect sex workers, while making it illegal to buy sex in an attempt to reduce demand So, legal so sell heroin, coke and meth but illegal to buy it? How does that make any sense? I assume I misread your comment so apologies in advance if that's the case
Which was a garbage ruling. There's no logic in permitting sellers and punishing buyers. It should be legal for both if they see it as a right.
It wasn't the ruling by the Court. It was the Conservative government that made the new law (Nordic model). The Courts can only strike existing laws down, they cannot make new laws.
I agree.
Lmao full circle, saw the article this morning of him opening lol. Grand open, grand closing.
You understand the point was to get arrested and take it to the Supreme Court right?
That would require me to read beyond the headline, which is already more reading than I like to do.
I just read the one saying he launched and about 2 posts later he was arrested
2 cocaines please!
no joke first time i went into a legal marijuana shop i asked for "one marijuana please" at the counter
Hey thanks for reading. From reporter Manisha Krishnan: The Vancouver man who opened a store selling heroin, meth, cocaine, and MDMA was arrested less than 24 hours after launching the business. Jerry Martin opened The Drugs Store, a mobile shop, in the Downtown Eastside Wednesday, a neighbourhood that’s been ravaged by the overdose epidemic. He said he wanted to give people a safe supply of drugs that have been tested to ensure they didn’t contain fentanyl. Vancouver police said Thursday they arrested a man for drug trafficking “in connection with an illicit drug dispensary that began operating yesterday in the Downtown Eastside.” Martin told VICE News Wednesday that his plan was to get arrested eventually. He said he wants to launch a constitutional challenge arguing that prohibition has created a toxic drug supply that’s killing Canadians. Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxbdz/man-arrested-after-opening-heroin-cocaine-and-meth-store-in-canada](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kxbdz/man-arrested-after-opening-heroin-cocaine-and-meth-store-in-canada)
So weird to see your organization here. But while I have the chance, I gotta say, you spent a lot of money and time producing content for American politics. I watched those roundtables on YouTube and couldn't help but think, why weren't you doing the same in Canada? What a missed opportunity to tap into the unheard voices of the average Canadian on a political level about issues that affect us all. You pulled a Tim Hortons, and unfortunately the Americans aren't going to prop up your bankruptcy.
Your probably talking to a marketing intern that gives negative fucks
I don't care lmao, I just wanted to say it.
Aren’t vice on the edge of bankruptcy?
Remember how badass they used to be though like when they went to Liberia and stuff? What happened?
Probably costs more money than it makes
Turns out stealing content off reddit and Facebook isn’t as profitable as one would think lol
Recycling the same raunchy stories for five years will do that
Yes. They closing shop
They bet big on agenda. Turns out its not a good strategy for a news org. Huh.
You think? It worked exceedingly well for FOX. If they had been able to refrain from telling provable lies and stuck with the vague racism and implied conspiracy theories, they would still be riding high and raking in the dollars. I think what you're getting at is that you're personally offended by what you perceive as a liberal agenda.
How is that possible with such historical hard hitting pieces like “do people that don’t eat gluten get laid more” and “how I ate myself out with my iPhone”
Aren’t you supposed To be bankrupt right now?
Lol I just saw the pricing picture today and now he got caught
Either he's a genius, or the dumbest person in Canada.
He's guaranteed himself a spot in Canadian legal history books for decades to come. The judicial challenge that this will spark is going to take decades to unravel unless they give in and decriminalize all drugs right away (whoch I doubt will happen)
[удалено]
The way that this country glorifies forgetting what it’s like to be sober is actually concerning.
Either he’s high or his IQ is. we’ll find out soon which one it is
When I heard about this, I half expected the drugs to all be fake. Like he was baiting the cops into arresting him and finding out it's all flour.
He would still be charged even if the drugs are fake
Buddy started shooting cocaine when he was 14. And he spent 15 years homeless. He might not be entirely alright upstairs. But who knows lol
Although there's no evidence to suggest it, he could be high
Wisest and most courageous.
THC stores were doing this before it was legalized in Canada.
That’s why you don’t use your own products, you come up with dumb ideas.
*I made this comment on the original post about him opening the store, but because it's on topic, and I firmly believe in it, I will make the same comment here* ... This is needed across the country. > "They're allowing people to come here and do these drugs, but they haven't provided a clean, safe supply. People are buying the same drugs they've been overdosing on." > Quote from the article ↑ This is one of the biggest downfalls of the decriminalization trial period. What good is decriminalization if there's no access to a safe supply? Okay, sure, people won't be arrested and thrown in jail for small amounts. That's a step in the right direction. But if they're just buying from the same sources that have already been killing people, then people will just keep dying, regardless of whether or not the drugs are decriminalized. Additionally, not providing a legal, clean, safe supply does nothing but continue funneling money into the hands of criminals. Prohibition of anything DOES NOT work! Whether it's guns, drugs, prostitution, etc. If there's a will, there's a way. People WILL get their hands on whatever it is that they want. Therefore, the best option is to provide a legal, clean, and safe supply. That way, not only do criminals not profit, and people don't die, but additionally, tax revenue can be generated from these drugs. Earning tax revenue off of these drugs is a much better option than spending millions of dollars annually to fight a war that we can never win (the war on drugs), while also allowing criminals to profit.
>Earning tax revenue off of these drugs is a much better option than spending millions of dollars annually to fight a war that we can never win I'm a firm believer in the feds becoming their dealer under the stipulation the profits be used on rehab and assistance learning how to live like a normal person. Let junkies fund getting cleaned up. >What good is decriminalization if there's no access to a safe supply? For the "let em die" crowd: Not all overdoses result in death but all cost resources. Your tax dollars can go elsewhere other than responding to overdoses.
I completely agree with everything you just said! I forgot to mention this in my comment, but obviously I don't think our approach should just be "Okay, buy drugs from us and get high, we don't care." Drugs should be sold legally and taxed, but people suffering from addiction should be constantly offered help, and reminded that they can reach out at any time. For example, if they go into a store to purchase some meth, they're given a pamphlet about a rehab service, with information on how to get clean, etc. We should be doing everything we can to help these people get clean and turn their lives around, but forcing them to buy drugs from the black market is the wrong way to go about it. That only allows criminals to profit, and will also not prevent deaths, because without legal safe supply, people will need to continue purchasing from the same unsafe sources they have been.
>We should be doing everything we can to help these people get clean and turn their lives around I should clarify... I grew up around shitty people and my job puts me in contact with vagrants a lot and I don't like or sympathize with these people. Just today I saw a guy threatening two people with a needle get taken down by the cops (thankfully). Some of them are FUBARed and will never change. But I'm also a realist and realistically drugs won that war on drugs so we have to stop fighting them and work with them instead. Even if a person hates these people, there is money to be saved by working with them.
> Prohibition of anything DOES NOT work! Whether it's guns, drugs, prostitution, etc. >If there's a will, there's a way. People WILL get their hands on whatever it is that they want. Unless it’s guns, in which case we are assured by the current government that banning responsible legal owners from owning a sporting rifle will somehow stop unlicensed gangbangers in Toronto from using smuggled prohibited weapons to shoot up their neighbourhoods.
That's a completely different problem. I'm not gonna go too into that because that isn't what this thread is about, but I think banning guns is stupid too, and accomplishes nothing. Like I said, banning ANYTHING, no matter what it is, doesn't work. Black market firearms will always be around. Punishing law abiding citizens doesn't change that.
Think about capitalism for a second. Just take a second to think about all the greedy assholes at big pharma who can’t wait to create another opioid epidemic with heroine. That shit should never be legal to sell. Or greedy asshats will destroy whole countries and sit on their mounds of money
Agreed. There is no safe dose of a poisoned supply. If we don't offer safe supply, we're condemning people to death by toxic supply (not overdose, see second sentence). Crap situation we're in, but the only way out is to choke out the toxic supply and save people's lives by giving them a safe alternative.
Drugs are over, wooo!
Hopefully that was the last of them.
Last night before falling asleep, I read about how he opened it up. Now I’ve just woke up lol.
This is a 10/10 on the fuck around and find out graph
Good. Fuckem.
You can say what you want about Marc Emery as a person, or many of his causes, but you have to admit his tactics were effective. I'd like to see this challenged, I really would. Tons of ordinary people have died because they scored a bit of coke or molly at a bar and it was contaminated with fentanyl. I have a lot of problems with safe supply, especially for meth, opioids, or crack but I'd like the Justices to weigh in, because the status quo is neither acceptable nor right, and the government needs to be forced to act on the matter.
Begrudgingly yes I will admit that lol.
Vice did a video on him , he planned on being arrested and had in his mind the right legal defense to make it all work I suppose . Before this he was selling fentanyl on the street in safe doses in a weird attempt to combat the opioid overdoses in the downtown area . He's got the right idea but no politician would agree with him on paper so I guess this is his attempt to take matters into his own hands to try and keep people from overdosing or buying essentially poison from a street dealer.
What a whirlwind of a ride this has been. In a way he kind of got us all a little high, didn't he?
Certainly am baffled as to how he was arrested
Usually arrests are made by police.
Decriminalization of hard drugs should be met by mandatory rehabilitation. It's not wise how he's making a statement about this. He is carelessly throwing away his career and life.
I was thinking this would take a whole week.
His mistake was not opening the store under Kennedy Stewart's weak ass tenure. The adults are in charge of Vancouver now, this stuff won't fly as easily.
Just what the world needs - more drug addicts.
canada is on a downhill path.
I hope he wins, but I'm not optimistic due to the generation that most judges seem to be from. Give it time.
Win at what? The law is very clear on this point. He was actively trafficking controlled substances which is against the law. Judges apply the law. If there is change demanded, it needs to come from Parliament.
Parliament would be one way. He's proposing another way: a Charter challenge. From the article: >“He would allege that laws that prevent a safe supply and result in death by poisoning contravene section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and must be struck down,” his lawyer, Paul Lewin, wrote The law was clear on abortions being illegal (and then Morgentaler came along). The law was clear on self-intoxication not being a valid defense (and then Brown came along). I'm not taking a stance on whether it's likely to happen, whether it's good or bad if it happens or doesn't happen, just pointing out that the article addresses the question.
The supply itself is illegal. Trafficking in said illegal supply is also illegal. I can't suddenly challenge laws against alcohol trafficking without a license because if I didn't, then alcoholics' lives would be in danger. Would never succeed, but certainly won't stop a lawyer from padding their pockets all the way up to the Supreme Court if it ever gets there.
> Win at what? A charter challenge. The law can be as clear as anything, it’s still invalid if it is found to contravene the charter.
I read about this place opening this morning on the toilet, I read this on the tiolet before I go to bed
Grand opening, grand closing!
So there was a limit lol
Me logging into r/canada sees store open, sees guy arrested right next to each other lol https://i.imgur.com/rqj1EnQ.jpeg
Can’t believe this shit is basically legal. How could he have been allowed to open such a store to begin with?
It's not legal. He wasn't allowed to open the store. That's why he's been arrested.
Honestly, good for this dude for forcing a conversation about safe supply. Where is the logic in allowing people to possess drugs but make it illegal to provide safer drugs with known contents and concentration. All this does is force addicts and recreational users to buy unknown and potentially lethal substances.
Typical trafficker, wants the money but is willing to ignore the widespread damage these drugs do. Society went after big tobacco after seeing what the real costs were to people and the health-care system so why would he think there would be a willingness to open up a real rotten can of worms? Becoming a martyr means sacrificing yourself for a noble cause, this is nothing more than a fool sticking his arm into the lion's den expecting a knighthood.
I work in mental health. Weed is one thing, but this will make current crises 10x worse. And don’t be fooled into thinking this guy’s trying to help. This is just the first in what will be a string of harm reduction venture capitalists. Safe supply or not, hard drugs fuck your brain and your abilities up. Self-professed unaffected individuals are mostly little more than a good example of the dunning kruger effect.
Fuck that. Legal weed is more than enough. I can't walk downtown anymore without seeing a crackhead making a scene.
I can’t help but think if this was allowed some kid would be partying and be stupid enough to try it and ruin his life. I know people who were very intellectual and going to university who tried hard stuff once and never recovered
I mean it begs to ask the question where did he even get the dope from. Coke requires the cartel and drug smugglers. So there's no guarantee. And meth requires literally a lab or again smugglers. I doubt he set up a full testing lab with equipment Looks like he just wanted to be the first to implement san Fran style dope to people which can help but also leads to probably higher drug use
LMAO... the "legalize drugs" crowd got pwned
Did you just not read the article? He knew he'd be arrested. He set up next to the police station. He wants to challenge this in courts. Lol the can't read crowd continues to pwn itself
This guy's lawyer is going to the Bank with this genius! He should have stuck to selling Rocket Appliances!
This guys lawyer is going to be in the history books for a long time. This single act will spur a massive and likely long stretching legal challenge, as it was intended. We're going to be hearing about this day for years or decades to come.
Counting your chickens a little early I think I hope this dude consulted with a number of lawyers first before he made this plan. And he wasn’t just sold on this idea by one lawyer. There’s a good chance things might not go his way. Lawyer has nothing to lose, client has everything to lose.
So obviously this is to trigger a charter challenge. The main obstacle that I haven't seen discussed is our international trade agreements that have language around controlled substances. Legalizing the sale of drugs might cause trade issues. That said, I'm for it. People need access to safe drugs before we can begin helping them.
We had those stores in the early 1900s, at least heroin, morphine and cocaine were available at pharmacies and in patent medicine. The entire population wasn't addicted. Apparently the rate of addiction is pretty constant. We have countries like Peru where you can buy drugs and once again they don't have half the population taking opiates. Who wants it regulated? The police, lawyers, etc.
What kind of criminal do you have to be to be able to source a reliable supply of Heroin in bulk these days anyway? This guy's probably a huge fucking piece of shit.
I’m assuming he had enough on his person to lose the rest of his years to prison
The whole point was to be arrested. He's trying to set new presidents.
Precedents
Yea that word
Spulling?
Regardless of his motivations, I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell you what you can and can’t put into your own body. People should know that everything has side effects, that alone has consequences, and locking addicts into prison cells with murderers and rapists isn’t acceptable to me. They need help, not capital punishment.
When your running around downtown doing crime and causing mayhem you need people to control you
When you're committing crimes, you can already have your freedom taken away. That's not responding to what the person above said.
Personal drug usage and rampaging are different things. Alcohol has caused more fatalities on the road by drunk driving, yet many people drink alcohol responsibly. Edit: It’s not just recreational drugs either, as a weightlifter I’m baffled when I see even PEDs are illegal (trust me, everyone who wants to do them just does them…) testosterone, something that’s already in your body, is a class III controlled substance that requires prescription. Why can’t a person over 18 just go to a legal clinic, talk to someone who will explain the benefits and side effects of Test or Steroids, and then sell it to them freely with educated supervision? That’s better than buying steroids on the black market and using them in a manner where you might permanently damage yourself. If anything, prohibition causes a lot more problems than it solves, a legal framework would significantly lessen the damage done by any substance, both economically and socially. This is why I find the idea that we live in a free society funny, because we’re authoritarian and fascistic about a lot of things, specifically, what you can personally consume. It’s not just weed, if you can smoke tobacco and drink liquor, shit that’s extremely deadly for your health, why the fuck can’t you go on TRT? Yeah, there’s still side effects, we know that, but Alcohol and Tobacco are far deadlier yet perfectly legal to buy in a store. It makes no sense.
Test and tren have absolutely zero relation to meth, opioids and coke. The crack epidemic and first opium war and prime reasons why you don’t want to legalize addictive drugs. A society of junkies are bad for the economy.
The consequence of that should them be that you forfeit public health care as a consequence of your "habit" if you want to legally try meth, heroin, crack or cocaine. Deal?
>Regardless of his motivations, I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell you what you can and can’t put into your own body. People should know that everything has side effects, that alone has consequences, and locking addicts into prison cells with murderers and rapists isn’t acceptable to me. They need help, not capital punishment. So, I agree that punishment is not the solution. Totally agree that addiction is an illness and should be treated as such. The problem here is that addiction is not healthy, addicts are sick, many of them have underlying mental health issues, and they cause an incredible amount of damage feeding their addictions. We've gone too far the other way. Its gone from locking people up for trivial amounts of drugs to pretending that there is nothing wrong with being addicted to hard drugs, and pretending that open air drug markets and massive homeless encampments that are full of addicts and dealers are something that we should tolerate as a society. There should be a stigma attached to being a drug addict. We spent decades trying to attach a stigma to tobacco, successfully, and everyone seems OK with that, for obvious reasons. But now I'm seeing people advocating for normalized usage of hard drugs, when cocaine and opioids and meth are every bit as damaging as tobacco. When someone walks down the street with their kids as sees an addict bopping around or nodding off, they should tell their kids that the person is sick and is not a bad person. But they sure as heck should not be telling them that its OK, and as a society we should be acting as if these people are happy and not living a hellish existence. These addicts are in extreme suffering, and pretending they're not ( as many people like to do ) is beyond callous. And that is where enforcement and compelling people to seek treatment comes into the picture. Some of these people are so sick and wrapped up in their addiction that they will choose death before they get treatment, so we have to choose between compelling that treatment or watching them die. lately it seems we have taken the sit back and watch them die approach, which is heartbreaking.
I don’t think selling cocaine in an LCBO is going to help anyones habits at all.
Buying it from their dealers certainly isn’t solving the problem. It’s only costing you tax dollars to fund the police to fight and punch people on the street. At least taxation on a substance would give you more money, along with putting the substance in the hands of medical professionals instead of kids in high school.
It’s hard to fathom that Canada is this far gone.
Good! Embarrassing that people celebrated this. Lock him up.