Latest news with #decriminalization
CBC
a day ago
- Health
- CBC
How to fight Quebec's toxic drug problem? A former user says change the conversation
This is the second of two articles looking at the issue of drug overdoses in Quebec, where the situation is heading and what needs to be done to curb this trend. You can read the first article here. The turning point in Martin Rivest's recovery from a crystal meth addiction came when his doctor, in an attempt to provide comfort, told him: "Martin, addiction is a disease." "It gave me a sense of relief. I was like 'OK, I'm not a bad person,'" said Rivest, looking back at his struggles from about 15 years ago. "A lot of people that are affected by the drug crisis, a lot of it is due to shame, stigmatization, judgment from others and a lack of respect." Rivest now does outreach work with the Association québécoise pour la promotion de la santé des personnes utilisatrices de drogues (AQPSUD), a group in downtown Montreal that advocates for safe drug consumption and is run by people who use drugs or did so in the past. The stigma, Rivest believes, doesn't just come from friends, family or strangers. It comes from people in power. Rivest and others believe that too much of the discussion around Quebec's opioid crisis ignores the perspectives of the people who, according to him, are the most knowledgeable about the issue: drug users and those who work with them. Advocates say overcoming the crisis is complicated, but it starts with an openness to ideas they've been pushing for years: having a real conversation about decriminalizing simple drug possession and ending the stigmatization of users. And with fatal overdoses in Quebec occurring at an unprecedented frequency, those advocates say decision makers need to finally listen up. "Frankly, we feel abandoned. We don't feel heard or taken seriously. We get the feeling they view us like children," said Rivest. "We like to say in French, rien sur nous sans nous, So nothing for us without us. We are part of the solution because we are the users. We know the problem." 'We shame them every day' As far as fatal drug overdoses are concerned, 2025 is not off to an encouraging start: 153 deaths between Jan. 1 and March 31, according to the province's public health institute, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ). In 2024, Quebec recorded 645 confirmed or suspected fatal overdoses, by far the highest total ever recorded in the province. The numbers have been trending upwards over the last decade. That same year, B.C. Premier David Eby rolled back the province's historic decriminalization project and recriminalized drug use in public spaces after facing intense scrutiny. Governments dealing with a toxic drug problem often appear to be trying to walk a fine line: getting people with drug addictions the help they need while not angering the broader public. "While we are caring and compassionate for those struggling with addiction, we do not accept street disorder that makes communities feel unsafe," B.C's premier said at the time. Last month, when the Coalition Avenir Québec government tabled Bill 103 — which would prohibit supervised drug consumption sites from being located within 150 metres of a school or daycare — Social Services Minister Lionel Carmant had a similar message. "The overdose crisis is at the heart of our concerns," Carmant said. "But we also have the responsibility to ensure that these places are safe for everyone." If Bill 103 becomes law, Maison Benoît Labre, a facility with a safe drug consumption site located about 143 metres away from a school, would eventually need the move. Andréane Desilets, the executive director there, said Bill 103 and the controversy that's followed Maison Benoît Labre has taken a toll on staff and clients. "A lot of people are hurt. A lot of people feel ashamed," said Desilets. "Because this is what we do, right? We shame them. We shame them every day with these laws. We exclude them from being a part of our community because we failed to provide acceptable support for them." Desilets says she understands concerns about Maison Benoît Labre, but adds that the conversation could use some reframing: more of a community perspective and less of an "us and them" attitude. "What should be very scary is the fact that people are dying on the streets and we're not doing anything," she said. "If we just continue on with this vision that it's a personal problem or an individual problem, then we will not get better and will not see any action and will not see numbers that are going down, only going up." Quebec has 14 supervised drug consumption sites. If Bill 103 is adopted, Maison Benoît Labre is one of two sites that would need to move. The other one is in Gatineau. Maison Benoît Labre has said moving the centre, which is currently seven metres too close to a school at the moment, would cost about $6.6 million. Quebec's plan for drug overdoses Quebec's Health Ministry says dealing with drug overdoses in the province is a priority, but it's also become increasingly challenging. "The situation is changing rapidly and is made more complicated by the fact that there are numerous substances contributing to the overdoses," wrote spokesperson Marie-Christine Patry in a statement. "The illicit market is evolving rapidly, with drug contaminations that are not just limited to opioids." The Health Ministry says it's putting a lot of effort into flattening the overdose curve, pointing to its 14 safe consumption sites and 34 drug verification sites, the widespread availability of naloxone in pharmacies and recent ad campaigns. WATCH | Quebec government tries to raise awareness about overdoses: It also highlighted the province's 2022-25 strategy for overdoses, which focuses on seven areas: Raising awareness. Prevention and harm reduction. Public policy. Monitoring the issue. Research and training. Addiction treatment. Pain management. Overdose deaths in Quebec are on the rise, and the problem could get worse When asked about the province's plan, Desilets stressed the need to invest "massively" in prevention, but she also paused to reflect about how complex the drug overdose problem is. "You know, it's never this one solution, right?" she said, before bringing up a broader but, according to her, necessary approach. "We need to rethink how we see people that are using .... We have to address the fact, that maybe, just maybe, having safer substances going on the streets instead of letting criminal organizations create stronger and stronger and stronger substances." 'It's hell out there' For many observers, providing safe supply of drugs goes hand in hand with decriminalizing simple possession. Sarah Larney, a researcher and associate professor at the Université de Montréal with an expertise in drug-related harm, is favourable to the idea, but she acknowledges it can be a tough sell to the general public. She said the pilot project in B.C. and its failures didn't help. "It's really unfortunate," Larney said. "How do you move that needle to make that a conversation that can even be had in a way that is productive?" When asked about decriminalization, Montreal police Chief Fady Dagher said it's not a "miracle solution" and was a failure in B.C. "Decriminalization, when you think of it, it's not a bad option, it's not a bad orientation, but the system has to follow," Dagher told CBC Radio Noon host Shawn Apel. "The problem is you decriminalize but nobody's taking over. The health system is not there to do the follow-up and the partners are not there to do the follow-up." A spokesperson for Health Canada told CBC News that B.C. remains "the only jurisdiction that has been granted a time-limited exemption related to personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal substances" and it does not have any other similar requests. "As the first exemption of its kind in Canada, there was always an understanding that all levels of government, partners and stakeholders would need to work together to closely monitor impacts in British Columbia, learn from the implementation and make adjustments as needed," the statement reads. For the Quebec government, decriminalization is a non-starter. IA spokesperson for the province's Justice Ministry said the risks associated with opioid consumption are significant, "so are the implications of a decision" on decriminalization. "For now, we're focused on doing everything possible to accompany people in the most humane way possible," said spokesperson Cathy Chenard. WATCH | How to use naloxone to help someone: How to administer naloxone if you witness an overdose 2 years ago Duration 2:28 Larney says tackling the toxic drug crisis requires several layers of intervention, such as decriminalization, addressing the housing crisis and supplementing people's income. "It's quite radical, I'll admit that," she said. "But everything else we've tried doesn't work and I'm not sure that continuing down this path is going to work either." The Quebec government's current path involves likely adopting Bill 103 and restricting where safe drug consumption sites can be located. Desilets, the executive director for Maison Benoît Labre, says the proposed legislation "will not have any impact on what's going on."
Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Radical change to abortion laws threatens unintended consequences
Women will no longer be criminally liable for terminations after 24 weeks ALISHIA ABODUNDE/GETTY IMAGES W hen Lord Steel introduced the 1967 Abortion Act, the Liberal MP eloquently explained why: 'I believe that a strong argument for bringing forward the bill at this time is that there has been a growing tide of public opinion in favour of such a change.' It was debated for well over a year and endured scrutiny from a special advisory committee to ensure the medical profession was happy. It was backed by the Labour government and received support across party lines. Few would suggest that it became law haphazardly. The same, sadly, cannot be said for an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which was passed by a majority of 242 votes in the Commons on Tuesday evening. In the biggest shake-up to abortion laws in almost six decades, sanctions for women who pursue late-term abortions will be repealed. The law presently states that abortion is illegal, yet admissible during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, or in certain extreme circumstances. This is one of the most liberal regimes in the West. But thanks to the impromptu efforts of Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower, a woman who terminates a pregnancy after 24 weeks will no longer be criminally liable in any way. Abortions after 20 weeks make up just 0.1 per cent of all cases, and the numbers of those actually prosecuted are small. But the evidence and experience from other nations who have pursued a decriminalisation approach are clear: it will lead to an increase in late-term abortions. Any woman who aborts her baby at any point in her pregnancy, up to the day before its birth, will be free from criminal sanction. Even the most ardent advocate of a women's right to choose must see that this change risks a host of unintended consequences. While women considering ultra-late termination must be regarded with the greatest understanding and sympathy, the possibility of a viable child being killed shortly before its birth is not a prospect to be treated lightly. • MPs vote to decriminalise abortion There has been no great public clamour for this change. Unlike in the United States, abortion has not become a dividing line between left and right. Yet, such is the extreme nature of Ms Antoniazzi's amendment that it risks creating a political fissure. The split in the Commons vote is illustrative: all but four Conservative MPs voted against the amendment, as did four out of five Reform UK MPs. Nigel Farage, Reform's leader, was absent. There are lessons from this episode. One is the continuing effect of the pandemic, during which abortion pills were posted to women up to ten weeks into a pregnancy. This may have been necessary when contact with a doctor was impossible, but it resulted in some women falsely claiming to be under ten weeks when they were later in their terms. Ms Antoniazzi's amendment means this ebhaviour could become more widespread. The biggest issue, however, is a total lack of leadership. Sir Keir Starmer was not present for the vote due to the G7 summit in Canada. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, was also absent but made it known she was against the change. The result is that one of the most significant social reforms of the century so far has been passed after barely two hours of debate and with no direction from the government of the day. It was a conscience vote but a hugely significant one. If this amendment results in perverse outcomes the government will have only itself to blame. This laxity by ministers on a major issue is mirrored in the deeply flawed assisted dying legislation which is due to receive its third reading tomorrow. It is likely to sail through the Commons with the tacit support of a prime minister who has again shrunk from investing his political capital in a sensitive issue. This ministerial vacuum is filled by activist Labour backbenchers intent on promoting their own social agendas. The potential for unintended consequences is all too clear.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Legislation to decriminalise abortion for women clears the Commons
Legislation which would see abortion decriminalised for women terminating their own pregnancies has cleared the Commons. MPs voted 312 to 95, majority 217 to approve the Crime and Policing Bill at third reading on Wednesday. This comes after the Commons backed Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment, which will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral. Downing Street said the change to abortion laws must be 'workable and safe', following Tuesday's verdict. MPs voted 379 to 137, majority 242, to back Ms Antoniazzi's amendment. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe. But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.' The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.' The Bill will now undergo further scrutiny in the House of Lords. It will also introduce a two-step verification process for the sale of knives and crossbows purchased online, and greater protections for emergency workers from racial and religious abuse during house calls are also included in the Bill. Speaking during report stage on Tuesday, Ms Antoniazzi said she pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions. The Gower MP said: 'This is the right change at the right time. I implore colleagues who want to protect women and girls and abortion services to vote for new clause one. 'Let's ensure that not a single desperate woman ever again is subject to traumatic, criminal investigation at the worst moments in their lives.' Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law. Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment. They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative front bench voted against it but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is under 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislation to decriminalise abortion for women clears the Commons
Legislation which would see abortion decriminalised for women terminating their own pregnancies has cleared the Commons. MPs voted 312 to 95, majority 217 to approve the Crime and Policing Bill at third reading on Wednesday. This comes after the Commons backed Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment, which will remove the threat of 'investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. The issue was treated as a matter of conscience, with MPs given a free vote and the Government remaining neutral. Downing Street said the change to abortion laws must be 'workable and safe', following Tuesday's verdict. MPs voted 379 to 137, majority 242, to back Ms Antoniazzi's amendment. A No 10 spokesman said: 'We'll look at this in detail, considering whether any changes are necessary to make it workable and safe. But, of course, this would not change the intent of the amendment passed.' The spokesman added: 'As with all laws, the Government has a responsibility to ensure it is safe and workable.' The Bill will now undergo further scrutiny in the House of Lords. It will also introduce a two-step verification process for the sale of knives and crossbows purchased online, and greater protections for emergency workers from racial and religious abuse during house calls are also included in the Bill. Speaking during report stage on Tuesday, Ms Antoniazzi said she pushed for the change in the law after cases of women being investigated by police over suspected illegal abortions. The Gower MP said: 'This is the right change at the right time. I implore colleagues who want to protect women and girls and abortion services to vote for new clause one. 'Let's ensure that not a single desperate woman ever again is subject to traumatic, criminal investigation at the worst moments in their lives.' Medics or others who facilitate an abortion after the 24-week time limit could still face prosecution if the change becomes law. Though the Government took a neutral stance on the vote, several Cabinet ministers were among the MPs who backed the amendment. They included Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Defence Secretary John Healey, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander, Environment Secretary Steve Reed, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Scotland Secretary Ian Murray, Wales Secretary Jo Stevens and Commons Leader Lucy Powell. Kemi Badenoch and many members of the Conservative front bench voted against it but shadow education secretary Laura Trott voted in favour. Abortion in England and Wales currently remains a criminal offence unless with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. It is also legal to take prescribed medication at home if a woman is under 10 weeks pregnant. Efforts to change the law to protect women from prosecution follow repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th century law, the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Should abortion have been decriminalised?
While women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting their pregnancies at any point up to birth, an exclusive Telegraph poll reveals that 95 per cent of more than 11,000 respondents are against this decision. MPs voted with a majority of 242 to decriminalise seeking an abortion at any stage of gestation for any reason, removing the threat of women being investigated or arrested for seeking termination. Telegraph readers' reasons against the amendment ranged from a belief that life begins at conception to concerns over late-term abortions and the contrast with ongoing restrictions on assisted dying. 'This law has legalised murder' In a world in which access to birth control is readily available and many who want to be parents are unable to have children, some readers feel strongly that abortion should not be a legal option at all. Giles Darling argues: 'Imagine how many people alive today could have been legally terminated if this abortion-up-until-birth policy had been the law in the past? A child with a congenital condition or an unwanted genetic trait could miss their chance to be an impactful future scientist or entrepreneur.' Rosemary Wells writes: 'A baby at full term or even six weeks before birth is capable of living outside the womb and is completely sentient. They're conscious and able to feel pain. This law has legalised murder. This is legalising the destruction of anyone who is inconvenient and unwanted.' Linda Richards, who says she never thought the amendment would be voted through, comments: 'If these women don't want the child, give it up for adoption.' Bernie Carolan, who wrote to his MP about the matter, says: 'I asked her to vote no, as medical professionals have publicly raised grave concerns about the procedures involved in late-term abortions. These are not abstract debates – it's a matter of life and human dignity.' ' After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on' Though many readers do not oppose the concept of abortion, and the law does not change restrictions on when doctors can administer abortions, there is a shared sense that allowing mothers to terminate pregnancies up until full term is a step too far. Judith Gordon-Nichols says: 'Abortion can be appropriate if, for instance, a woman or girl is pregnant as a result of rape or if the baby would be very disabled, but otherwise, no. After 22 weeks, it is absolutely not on.' Sharing a similar sentiment, Nicola Bradley comments: 'I think this is disgraceful. I am pro-choice and think that every woman should have the right to a termination on demand, but only up to 16 weeks maximum. After that, it should only be available for medical or health reasons with proper controls and penalties.' Sheridan Cooper writes: 'There is no need for this. I'm pro-choice, but the cut-off point is there for a reason. Unless the mother's life is at risk, there should be no termination beyond 24 weeks.' 'It's a slippery slope to legal death at any age' The decision to decriminalise abortion has been made at a time when Parliament is also in an ongoing debate on the topic of assisted dying. Readers speculate that the change will set a precedent for any future ruling over assisted dying. Louis Degas points out: 'We allow mothers to kill their potentially very healthy unborn child, but we are still debating the right for terminally ill, sane adults to end their own lives. Something seems wrong.' On the other hand, Denise Crowe is concerned about the ease with which Parliament is allowing laws on lives to pass. 'Another totally wrong decision by members of Parliament,' she argues. 'Next, the assisted dying Bill will be passed, and then it will be a slippery slope to legal death at any age.'
