Stable patterns, shifting risks: the impact of British Columbia’s decriminalization and recriminalization policies on drug use behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada's historical reliance on criminal justice approaches to drug policy has intensified structural and social stigma, and high-risk behaviours among people who use drugs. In response to pressure from local advocates, British Columbia implemented a pilot decriminalization policy in January 2023, permitting adults to possess up to 2.5 g of specified unregulated substances, cumulatively. While not designed to address the toxic drug supply directly, it aimed to reduce stigma and encourage engagement with health and harm reduction services. In May 2024, however, drug possession in public spaces was recriminalized, raising concerns about a return to punitive environments. To date, little is known about how these policy shifts have been experienced by people who use drugs themselves. We conducted a qualitative study exploring the impacts of British Columbia's decriminalization policy and its subsequent recriminalization amendment on the drug use behaviours of people who use drugs across the province. METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study with 75 people who use drugs across British Columbia, including a socio-demographic survey, and semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. The codebook was applied across all transcripts using a comparative approach to identify recurring patterns, divergent experiences, and key themes related to drug use behaviours. RESULTS: Participants reported little to no change in their drug use patterns following either decriminalization or recriminalization, as drug use was primarily driven by dependence, routine, and structural factors. Nonetheless, many described a psychological benefit under decriminalization, including reduced shame, internalized stigma, and fear of criminalization. These gains were largely reversed following the recriminalization amendment, which pushed drug use back into hidden, high-risk environments. Participants also noted destabilizing shifts in the drug supply, including increased potency and a rise in less experienced dealers, linked to the 2.5 g threshold. CONCLUSION: Decriminalization did not significantly alter drug use behaviours but offered notable psychological relief for participants. The subsequent recriminalization amendment then reversed these perceived gains, illustrating how this abrupt policy change led to unintended consequences, undermining the original goals of the decriminalization policy. These findings highlight the need for sustained and structurally supported effective policy approaches that center the lived realities of people who use drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".