Since the inception of British Columbia’s drug decriminalization policy, which took effect in January 2023, harm reduction advocates have debated it intensely with policymakers and law enforcement. They’ve long argued that key elements of the policy, such as the 2.5-gram possession threshold and the exclusion of benzodiazepines, are fundamentally misaligned with the realities of people’s lives.
Over halfway through the policy’s three-year implementation period, a study recently published in Harm Reduction Journal reached some strikingly similar conclusions.
The researchers interviewed 100 people who use drugs across the province about their awareness of the policy and its impacts on their behavior. Their results indicate that though decriminalization was broadly welcomed, it has had minimal effects on how people purchase and consume substances. That reflected interviewees’ concerns about the policy’s design—particularly the 2.5-gram combined limit of banned drugs that an adult can possess without risking criminal penalties.
“A one-size-fits-all approach of a threshold doesn’t really reflect the realities of all these diverse people.”
“A one-size-fits-all approach of a threshold doesn’t really reflect the realities of all these diverse people,” lead author Dr. Farihah Ali, of the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Matters (CRISM), told Filter, referring to the broad range of impacted people in the province and their differing lifestyles and substance-use routines.
To ensure that their data represented this diverse array of voices, the research team recruited participants through harm reduction service providers across BC’s five health regions. They also asked participants to refer friends, capturing perspectives from people who may not receive services directly.
This two-pronged approach “was pivotal for reaching participants from smaller and more rural/remote communities who were less connected to formal health and harm reduction services,” the researchers wrote. It was also important for exploring how the policy’s effects may differ by location.
“In the rural areas of BC across the province, people still get criminalized for possession. So there’s definitely this geographical difference in how the policy is implemented,” study coauthor Matthew Bonn told Filter.
All interviewees were adults who had lived in BC since before the policy was implemented and used unregulated substances at least three times per week. The interviews were conducted before the May 2024 decision to re-criminalize drug use in public spaces.
Over the phone, interviewees were asked open-ended questions about their awareness of the policy, any changes in their substance use and purchasing patterns, and their suggestions for improvements. The questions were designed collaboratively alongside people with lived experience, who provided feedback on how best to ask about certain topics.
To analyze their results, the research team “coded” the interviews by labeling transcript segments and identifying recurring themes. They recruited Bonn, a person with lived experience from the opposite side of the country, to provide an external review of their findings.
“I coded a subset of the interviews … to help get rid of any of the discrepancies that we may have had,” Bonn said, noting that this approach went above and beyond how people with lived experience are typically included in research.
Notably, several participants feared increased overdose risk due to the additional cutting that distribution of very small quantities may involve.
Overall, the results indicated that most people were aware of the policy, though there was confusion over the details. Many people did not know about the threshold limit, or thought that it referred to 2.5 grams of each substance. The specific drugs covered, and the policy’s expiration date and overarching goals, were also sources of confusion.
Relatedly, several interviewees said that little information had been circulated. As one 42-year-old woman explained, “Between working [at two different harm reduction sites], I didn’t even get any of the information [about decriminalization] that was passed around.” Instead, she learned about the policy from a pamphlet given to her by a friend.
The researchers also found that, on average, people had not changed their drug purchasing and consumption habits to fit the policy’s specifications.
The 2.5-gram threshold was a key inhibitor to following the policy. Notably, several participants feared increased overdose risk due to the additional cutting that distribution of very small quantities may involve.
“There has been an increase in low-level sellers who primarily engage in small drug transactions, which they linked to a heightened risk of overdose,” Bonn explained. “If there’s more people on the lower end selling smaller amounts of drugs, those drugs are more likely to be contaminated and adulterated rather than higher up the supply chain.”
“They buy in bulk because they don’t want to be going out frequently to engage with their dealer … they buy in bulk because they split and share.”
A variety of other reasons also helped explain why most people’s purchasing habits remained the same.
“People buy over the threshold because that’s how drugs are commonly packaged and sold,” Ali said. “They buy in bulk because they don’t want to be going out frequently to engage with their dealer … they buy in bulk because they split and share. So just not recognizing those aspects of why people are purchasing above the threshold is really a disservice.”
The 2.5-gram limit was especially cumbersome for people living in rural areas. As one 47-year-old man who lives “a long way out of town” told the research team, “I don’t want to constantly keep going to the dealer’s house or whatever, you know, and I pick up for myself and my girlfriend.” Buying in larger quantities, he said, is “cheaper, it’s more convenient, fewer trips.”
In light of these suboptimal experiences with the policy, participants discussed potential improvements. One suggestion, of course, was to raise the possession limit. Several participants noted that 3.5 grams would better reflect how drugs are packaged and sold, while others advocated for removing the limit entirely.
Others noted the inherent limits of decriminalization, asserting that legalization was necessary to ensure a safe supply. As one 40-year-old nonbinary respondent argued, “making a regulated supply available will really just completely solve the problem rather than just taking a little chisel to it.”
On the whole, however, Ali noted that most participants said they were happy with the policy and felt it was “a step in the right direction.”
“It really does work towards recognizing that substance use and addiction is a health issue. It’s not a criminal issue. It’s not a moral issue,” she said.
This research is the first in a series of evaluations of BC decriminalization being conducted by CRISM. Several additional studies are set to be released soon, including a quantitative cost-benefit analysis. As pushback against harm reduction continues to intensify in BC, CRISM’s continued monitoring efforts should provide a valuable evidence base for policy evaluation.
Photograph (cropped) by www.yzzerdd.com via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0
Show Comments