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.