Content
About this brief
Perceptions and Experiences with Police among People Who Use Drugs During the First Year of British Columbia’s Drug Decriminalization Policy
Brief about:
Journal Article (2025)
Written by:
Other researchers:
This research examines perceptions of police and experiences of police practices among people who use drugs following the decriminalization of illicit drugs in the Canadian province of British Columbia
In 2023, British Columbia (BC) implemented Canada’s first province-wide drug decriminalization policy, which removed criminal penalties for possession of up to a cumulative 2.5g of certain illegal drugs. Among its public health objectives, the policy aimed to foster more positive and equitable interactions between people who use drugs and police, including reducing existing racial disparities in the enforcement of simple possession. However, findings from this study indicate that the first year of implementation has produced limited progress towards these goals.
Participants (n=100) described ongoing strained and distrustful relationships with police, noting that decriminalization had not meaningfully changed day-to-day experiences. They reported inconsistent, and at times, unlawful enforcement practices, including improper drug seizures, and uneven decision-making across police officers and jurisdictions. Police discretion remained a central driver of outcomes, frequently shaped by an individual’s social identity, such as housing status, race and ethnicity, and physical appearance. Moreover, people who use drugs with overlapping disadvantages (e.g., homelessness, poverty, racialization) were more likely to use drugs in public due to a lack of safe, private spaces, and were thus more susceptible to police scrutiny. This increased visibility intensified the frequency and nature of police encounters, despite the intention of the policy to reduce criminal-legal involvement. Taken together, these findings highlight the need for clearer and more standardized police training and education, coupled with the scale-up of harm reduction, housing, and social supports for people who use drugs.
Key findings
- Participant perspectives suggested inconsistent enforcement of BC’s decriminalization policy, leading to varied outcomes for people who use drugs.Evidence
However, the remaining four participants described that the police had destroyed or confiscated their drugs when they were carrying less than the 2.5 g possession threshold:
“So, like, I got stopped by a cop about two months ago and I had not even a point of fentanyl on me and he dumped it on the ground and smashed it into the ground. All [my encounters] have been similar to that. . . they’ve confiscated it every time.”
What it meansThis illustrates that the policy rollout lacked uniform implementation across settings and jurisdictions, resulting in uneven practices that shaped differing experiences and outcomes for people who use drugs
- Police discretion continued to play a significant role in the outcomes of interactions with people who use drugs, often influenced by the individual's social identity and visible markers of marginalization.Evidence
Several discussed how they continued to be targeted due to intersecting aspects of their identities, such as their physical appearance including whether they looked unkempt or had tattoos, whether they had a criminal record, and their racial or ethnic background:
“I think [the police] might pull the racist card, and they pick on First Nations quite a lot. . . and I like to wear all black, and you know, some people might say I look scary, like a goth, or whatever. And I get singled out a lot. . . And it’s like I don’t even do anything wrong, it’s just, I exist, you know? And it seems like wherever I go, I’m not allowed to be there.”
What it meansThis demonstrates that despite the policy change, frontline implementation remained highly discretionary, allowing identity factors and physical markers of marginalization to influence enforcement decisions and unequal outcomes.
- The lack of standardized police training contributed to inconsistent enforcement.Evidence
Several participants suggested that their interactions with police, including whether their drugs were seized or returned, therefore depended on each officer’s knowledge and training related to substance use and decriminalization:
“I mean given that police training was erratic, at best, when they trained them on the 2.5 grams, like it basically looks like whatever the police decides it looks like. It’s not like they bring out scales and weigh things on the spot.”
What it meansThis suggests that the lack of standardized guidance undermined consistent implementation of the policy, leading to variability in enforcement practiced across officers and contexts
- The visibility of public drug use, driven by a lack of private or safe consumption spaces, shaped the nature and frequency of policy encounters.Evidence
Consequently, these participants suggested that their housing status explicitly led to heightened police persecution, a pattern that persisted even after decriminalization:
“And so, I ended up homeless [for a while] and during that time, everywhere I went there was always the police asking me what I was doing, who I was with, what we were up to, things like that. So, I wasn’t doing anything different other than I didn’t have a place [to live]. But the treatment was a lot different..."
What it meansThis illustrates that people experiencing homelessness may be disproportionately exposed to police encounters under the policy, as the lack of private paces made their drug use more visible and more likely to be subject to discretionary enforcement.
- There is a need for alternative, non-punitive legal approaches and expanded harm reduction services to improve police interactions and outcomes for people who use drugs.Evidence
Furthermore, the reallocation of funds could also be redirected to critical health and social services designed to complement the policy, helping it achieves its goals. This could address key issues identified by some of our study participants, such as poverty, housing, and other socioeconomic factors that contribute to the intersecting challenges of drug use–related stigma and harm.
What it meansThis illustrates that these services could benefit the policy rollout by reducing reliance on police discretion and improve interactional and health outcomes for people who use drugs.
Proposed action
- Enhance police education and training through better standardization, specifically surrounding drug seizure and discretionary practices
- Establish accountability measures to formalize drug seizure practices and increase transparency around their documentation
- Expand harm reduction and housing services in conjunction with decriminalization to reduce public drug use visibility and improve safety for people who use drugs
Comments
You must log in to ask a question
Are you a researcher looking to make a real-world impact? Join Acume and transform your research into a practical summary.
Already have an account? Log in
Discover more
Perceptions and Experiences with Police among People Who Use Drugs During the First Year of British Columbia’s Drug Decriminalization Policy
Cite this brief: Russell, Cayley. 'Perceptions and Experiences with Police among People Who Use Drugs During the First Year of British Columbia’s Drug Decriminalization Policy'. Acume. https://www.acume.org/r/perceptions-and-experiences-with-police-among-people-who-use-drugs-during-the-first-year-of-british-columbias-drug-decriminalization-policy/
Brief created by: Cayley Russell | Year brief made: 2025
Original research:
- Bardwell, G., Russell, C., & et al., ‘Perceptions and Experiences with Police among People who use Drugs in the Initial Year of British Columbia’s Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs Policy’ Criminology and Public Policy 24(3), pp. 473–497 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12700. – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9133.12700?msockid=29144e7f5f0e6dea33615b785e9d6ce4
Research brief:
This research examines perceptions of police and experiences of police practices among people who use drugs following the decriminalization of illicit drugs in the Canadian province of British Columbia
In 2023, British Columbia (BC) implemented Canada’s first province-wide drug decriminalization policy, which removed criminal penalties for possession of up to a cumulative 2.5g of certain illegal drugs. Among its public health objectives, the policy aimed to foster more positive and equitable interactions between people who use drugs and police, including reducing existing racial disparities in the enforcement of simple possession. However, findings from this study indicate that the first year of implementation has produced limited progress towards these goals.
Participants (n=100) described ongoing strained and distrustful relationships with police, noting that decriminalization had not meaningfully changed day-to-day experiences. They reported inconsistent, and at times, unlawful enforcement practices, including improper drug seizures, and uneven decision-making across police officers and jurisdictions. Police discretion remained a central driver of outcomes, frequently shaped by an individual’s social identity, such as housing status, race and ethnicity, and physical appearance. Moreover, people who use drugs with overlapping disadvantages (e.g., homelessness, poverty, racialization) were more likely to use drugs in public due to a lack of safe, private spaces, and were thus more susceptible to police scrutiny. This increased visibility intensified the frequency and nature of police encounters, despite the intention of the policy to reduce criminal-legal involvement. Taken together, these findings highlight the need for clearer and more standardized police training and education, coupled with the scale-up of harm reduction, housing, and social supports for people who use drugs.
Findings:
Participant perspectives suggested inconsistent enforcement of BC’s decriminalization policy, leading to varied outcomes for people who use drugs.
However, the remaining four participants described that the police had destroyed or confiscated their drugs when they were carrying less than the 2.5 g possession threshold:
“So, like, I got stopped by a cop about two months ago and I had not even a point of fentanyl on me and he dumped it on the ground and smashed it into the ground. All [my encounters] have been similar to that. . . they’ve confiscated it every time.”
This illustrates that the policy rollout lacked uniform implementation across settings and jurisdictions, resulting in uneven practices that shaped differing experiences and outcomes for people who use drugs
Police discretion continued to play a significant role in the outcomes of interactions with people who use drugs, often influenced by the individual’s social identity and visible markers of marginalization.
Several discussed how they continued to be targeted due to intersecting aspects of their identities, such as their physical appearance including whether they looked unkempt or had tattoos, whether they had a criminal record, and their racial or ethnic background:
“I think [the police] might pull the racist card, and they pick on First Nations quite a lot. . . and I like to wear all black, and you know, some people might say I look scary, like a goth, or whatever. And I get singled out a lot. . . And it’s like I don’t even do anything wrong, it’s just, I exist, you know? And it seems like wherever I go, I’m not allowed to be there.”
This demonstrates that despite the policy change, frontline implementation remained highly discretionary, allowing identity factors and physical markers of marginalization to influence enforcement decisions and unequal outcomes.
The lack of standardized police training contributed to inconsistent enforcement.
Several participants suggested that their interactions with police, including whether their drugs were seized or returned, therefore depended on each officer’s knowledge and training related to substance use and decriminalization:
“I mean given that police training was erratic, at best, when they trained them on the 2.5 grams, like it basically looks like whatever the police decides it looks like. It’s not like they bring out scales and weigh things on the spot.”
This suggests that the lack of standardized guidance undermined consistent implementation of the policy, leading to variability in enforcement practiced across officers and contexts
The visibility of public drug use, driven by a lack of private or safe consumption spaces, shaped the nature and frequency of policy encounters.
Consequently, these participants suggested that their housing status explicitly led to heightened police persecution, a pattern that persisted even after decriminalization:
“And so, I ended up homeless [for a while] and during that time, everywhere I went there was always the police asking me what I was doing, who I was with, what we were up to, things like that. So, I wasn’t doing anything different other than I didn’t have a place [to live]. But the treatment was a lot different…”
This illustrates that people experiencing homelessness may be disproportionately exposed to police encounters under the policy, as the lack of private paces made their drug use more visible and more likely to be subject to discretionary enforcement.
There is a need for alternative, non-punitive legal approaches and expanded harm reduction services to improve police interactions and outcomes for people who use drugs.
Furthermore, the reallocation of funds could also be redirected to critical health and social services designed to complement the policy, helping it achieves its goals. This could address key issues identified by some of our study participants, such as poverty, housing, and other socioeconomic factors that contribute to the intersecting challenges of drug use–related stigma and harm.
This illustrates that these services could benefit the policy rollout by reducing reliance on police discretion and improve interactional and health outcomes for people who use drugs.
Advice:
Enhance police education and training through better standardization, specifically surrounding drug seizure and discretionary practices
Establish accountability measures to formalize drug seizure practices and increase transparency around their documentation
Expand harm reduction and housing services in conjunction with decriminalization to reduce public drug use visibility and improve safety for people who use drugs