Impact of Recriminalization of Drug Possession in British Columbia, Canada

"Furthermore, the recriminalization amendment was also reported to have significantly disrupted participants’ drug use environments, particularly for those without access to private, indoor spaces. However, the amendment reversed many of these perceived gains in safety and dignity, especially for those who relied on public spaces. Participants described an urgent need to ‘use and hide’, which often pushed them into more isolated and hazardous environments, such as alleyways, stairwells, tents, or behind dumpsters. These settings are among the most well-documented risk factors for fatal overdose, as they significantly reduce the likelihood of timely intervention, including naloxone administration, or emergency response, and put people who use drugs at increased risk of physical and sexual violence [11, 46,47,48]. Similar patterns have been documented in previous research, where increased police presence and enforcement activities led to ‘rushed’ injections, discouraged safer injection practices, and displaced people who use drugs from harm reduction services [49].

"Critically, these risks were not experienced equally across participants. A clear divide emerged between housed participants and participants experiencing homelessness. Re-criminalization amplified environmental risks for participants experiencing homelessness, who experienced intensified policing in public spaces, despite having no access to safer private locations. These dynamics illustrate the structural inequality embedded in the enforcement of drug policy and highlight the need for environmental-level interventions, not just behavioral ones. Those with stable housing often reported minimal fear of police interaction, attributing this to their ability to use indoors and a sense of being shielded by their physical appearance, housing status, and ability to use indoors, what some researchers have referred to as “privileged invisibility” [50]. These individuals felt insulated from scrutiny and able to continue their routines without significant fear of enforcement. However, this underscores a disconnect between one of the goals of the policy—reducing the risk of overdose by discouraging solitary use—and the lived realities of housed people who use drugs. Many housed participants continued to use drugs in private residences, where they may still face heightened risks for fatal overdose, rather than accessing supervised services, such as SCS or OPS. In contrast, participants experiencing homelessness expressed heightened vulnerability and fear, noting that their visibility, location, and perceived status as street-involved made them more likely to be profiled, surveilled, or targeted by law enforcement. This was further aggravated by the amendment, leaving very few safe, ‘decriminalized’ spaces available for people who use drugs and are experiencing homelessness to use their drugs without fear of arrest [51]."