Hypocrisy exists in the way certain behaviours are handled
By Lethbridge Herald on May 25, 2023.
OUR OPINION
In Alberta, the penalty for distracted driving is three demerit points and a $300 fine. This is a conviction that stays on a driver’s record for two years after conviction.
That one emergency text from family or work that has to be answered could be extremely costly.
Slam a cold brewski on a hot day in public where it’s not specifically permitted will cost a person a fine of $115. Being intoxicated in public will net a similar fine.
Penalties for open liquor offenses vary from province to province and they can be stiffer than the shooter a person quickly downs in public, especially if alcohol is being consumed in vehicles or even if open liquor is being carried in vehicles.
Light up a joint in a public park or on a street and an Albertan can also face legal consequences.
Nobody can argue about the potential harm of texting and driving, and especially not about drinking and driving. There should be penalties if public safety is being put at risk by the reckless behaviours of others.
So why is a blind eye turned to the behaviours of drug addicts who openly ingest fentanyl, heroin, crack or other drugs in public?
Some will argue there is hypocrisy in laws that make certain behaviours illegal and worthy of penalty while others are tolerated, if not, outright considered acceptable.
A person fishing along a riverbank with a beer or a joint on a hot summer day is not harming anyone – as long as the person doesn’t get into a vehicle and drives impaired – but that innocuous activity could land the person in a courtroom facing whatever penalty a judge deems worthy of the offence.
But would an addict filling his veins with an illegal substance along that same riverbank also be penalized? We know that wouldn’t happen because in this society, addicts arguably are above accountability for their behaviours.
They have diseases – and there is no argument they don’t – but they also have potential not only to do harm to themselves but also to others by their behaviours. And the substances they are illegally ingesting certainly are more harmful than a beer containing five per cent alcohol or a small amount of cannabis.
Alcoholics, it should be pointed out, also suffer a disease, but do we see tolerance for open consumption of liquor because they have an illness?
It should also be pointed out you don’t see naloxone being used and ambulances showing up to deal with a person having a brew on a hot summer day in a park, a person doing no harm to anyone. Ditto with a person smoking cannabis.
So why the double standard? It’s an issue that really is on the minds of many as we see how governments deal with the addictions crisis affecting communities across our country.
This isn’t a political issue, or a health issue, it’s a fairness issue. No government, no legal system can expect credibility if it doesn’t have a level playing field for all when it comes to behaviours that are considered criminal offences.
There can be no credibility when some are excused for their conduct while others are penalized for behaviour that is clearly less harmful.
Right now, an addict could do his or her business in a downtown doorway or in a playground where kids are playing or in a public park where artists are performing and you can be guaranteed there would be no action taken against that individual unless their behaviour was perhaps directly impacting others.
But heaven forbid a dude with a can of Coors Light is seen watching those musicians perform in a place where consumption is not expressly allowed and he or she could be facing legal consequences.
This is ludicrous. Laws exist to protect all citizens from harm and they should be applied equally to all citizens.
But they aren’t and that’s one reason there is widespread frustration and anger about so-called addictions strategies.
They protect the people doing harm to themselves and society, they enable the people doing harm to society and they do nothing to discourage drug traffickers from making a living off the vulnerable.
But if you dare crack open that ice cold beer on a sweltering day, you are a menace to society befitting a fine.
Who’s doing more harm? Honestly, who is doing more harm?
And why are they not being held accountable?
The public deserves an answer. The public deserves fairness.
27-26
Simple Answer, a troop of NDP don’t get any union jobs for you consuming a beer in a public spot, so you are to be chastised and damned.
On the otherhand, if an addict is consuming you have legions of people aspiring to NDP appointed government sponsored taxpayer paid jobs that grow exponentially from U of L
Good questions. The addicted and addicted homeless cost taxpayers anywhere from $150,000 to $350,000 per person annually, depending on how many times police area called, EMS dispatched, they are in courts or incarcerated, detoxed or in hospital for other reasons, the damages they cause, the army of non-profits/contractors needed to counter the impacts, etcetera.
You are correct, they do drugs in this city anywhere they want, even with the Watch observing and police. Why? They arrest someone and they back on the streets and the courts are so busy they throw the case out.
And because our police force is about 20 officers short and recruiting the right men and women is a huge task because of the ‘defund police’ gangs and the tough job they face every shift.
Calling them for open drug use takes them away from higher priority jobs such as taking down the dealers and suppliers. Bylaw enforcement need to be backed up by police due to the violent behaviours displayed by addicts when asked not to do the drugs there and often security, bylaw officers, police/fire/EMS are assaulted when dealing with open drug use.
Why? Because non-profits have made us believe that these people are ‘the most vulnerable’ and we have to support and enable them in their addiction, supplying all the paraphernalia they need, Naloxone kits, clothes they leave all over the streets, food and water delivered right to them anywhere on the streets, all as we watch them slowly kill themselves. They have destroyed their bodies to a point they walk like 80-90 year olds.
In what modern society should we allow people to openly destroy themselves in such a slow and painful manner? Some recent articles written in other newspapers have even called it ‘genocide’, and I partially agree, but genocide is not the right word. Although, since the Indigenous in Alberta are taking the biggest losses per capita, I wouldn’t doubt we get falsely accused of genocide in 20 to 30 years. Even though their lifestyle and actions of banishing addicts and dealers from their communities so they end up on our streets should be noted. We can’t banish them from our community.
We are standing back and allowing them to kill themselves, as their bodies collect more diseases, with open sores are visible. Is this Canada or a 3rd world country? It is shameful for any country to allow this.
I don’t care which party it is, I support any party that puts more money into effective treatment programs and shuts down safe consumption sites, takes a hard stance on drugs, puts proper legislation in place to deal with the issues, puts those who are killing themselves on our streets into mental health and addiction treatment programs so they can have a chance at life and find peace! Harm reduction programs in BC have failed yet the NDP is pro-harm reduction and will open more SCS sites across this province, increasing the addiction issues as they have in BC, who are opening more and soon will have over 35.
It is shameful that we allow this needless, senseless, slow and painful death to continue on our streets when it is cheaper and saves many more lives by effective treatment programs.
> $150,000 to $350,000 per person annually
Dang, sounds like we could house them and provide them with safe drugs and medical care and still come out way ahead! Someone should get on that!
Go for it.
This is an easy one – when it comes to alcohol the city has dozens of safe consumption sites and safe suppliers, conveniently located all over. We can treat open alcohol consumption differently because there are meaningful supports and alternatives in place for people struggling with that disease.
So I absolutely agree – fairness is critical here. We need to extend the infrastructure that allows safe alcohol use to other drugs. That’s what you’re proposing, right? Dozens of safe consumption sites where you can buy drugs (legally, undercutting those drug dealers you mentioned), that are regulated by health authorities to be what they claim to be, and consume them under supervision?
Thank you for speaking up and taking that bold stance – a drug is a drug and it’s time we acted like it.