Ms Fiona Wilson:

I would certainly add the increase with respect to resources and the need to ensure that when people want to seek treatment, that treatment is available. Unlike in Oregon, we had not legislated for any kind of increase in resources as a requirement under the exemption. For us with respect to resources, it was status quo in the wake of decriminalisation, whereas our hope and expectation from a policing perspective were that an increase in resources would occur but it did not materialise to the extent that we wanted it to along that entire spectrum. Making sure that you have those goalposts in and those parameters in place around public consumption is probably one of the largest issues.

Another great scenario for us in British Columbia was that you could have an 18-year-old, because the exemption applied to 18 and over, but in British Columbia you cannot drink alcohol until you are 19. Because the exemption was federal, it applied to the federal age of majority, which was 18. We had scenarios where an 18-year-old could go into a licensed establishment, and if that licensed establishment allowed it, they would not be able to order a beer but they could snort cocaine off the table as long as it was under 2.5 g, they brought it in themselves, and the licensee was not prohibiting that kind of behaviour. Those are some of the unintended consequences because use was not addressed, and only possession was.

I have lots of examples like that. Decriminalisation sounds so simple because we do not want to put people in jail by virtue of their drug use, but once you start getting into the details it can become very complex. Drug use is a very complex matter, much like my friend from Oregon mentioned. We do not believe we saw an increase in people using illicit drugs, but we did see an increase in people using drugs in circumstances that were unpalatable to other communities that we serve.