B.C.'s Drug Decriminalization Experiment Declared a Failure: MLA Elenore Sturko Calls for Accountability and Change

• The End of an Experiment

• MLA Elenore Sturko's Critique

• The Rise in Public Disorder

• The Enforcement Dilemma

• Calls for a Public Inquiry

• Alternative Approaches: Looking to Alberta

• Conclusion: What Comes Next for B.C.

The End of an Experiment

British Columbia's much-debated drug decriminalization pilot project has officially come to an end, with provincial health authorities admitting that the controversial policy "hasn't delivered the results that we hoped for." The conclusion of this three-year experiment marks a significant pivot in Canada's approach to addressing the ongoing opioid crisis that has claimed thousands of lives across the province and sparked intense debate about the most effective methods for reducing harm while maintaining public order.

The pilot program, which began in January 2023, represented a radical departure from conventional drug policy by removing criminal penalties for personal possession of small amounts of certain illegal substances, including opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Proponents argued that treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal justice matter would reduce stigma, encourage treatment-seeking behavior, and ultimately save lives in a province devastated by overdose deaths.

However, critics, including Surrey-Cloverdale Independent MLA Elenore Sturko, a former RCMP officer who has consistently opposed what she characterizes as the province's "soft-on-drugs approach," contend that the experiment produced precisely the opposite results. Rather than improving outcomes, Sturko and other opponents argue that decriminalization exacerbated public disorder, normalized drug use in community spaces, and failed to connect addicted individuals with the treatment services they require.

The provincial government's acknowledgment that the pilot failed to achieve its objectives represents a rare admission of policy shortcomings from authorities who had championed decriminalization as a evidence-based approach to a public health emergency. This reversal opens new questions about what strategies British Columbia will pursue going forward and whether lessons learned from this unsuccessful experiment can inform more effective interventions.

MLA Elenore Sturko's Critique

A Former Officer's Perspective

Elenore Sturko brings unique credentials to her critique of British Columbia's drug policies, combining legislative experience with frontline knowledge gained during her career as an RCMP officer. This background informs her understanding of both the practical challenges facing law enforcement and the limitations of approaches that remove criminal justice tools without providing adequate alternatives.

Sturko's central question cuts to the heart of the enforcement dilemma created by decriminalization: "What's the point of police arresting people in possession of illegal drugs if the Crown isn't going to proceed with charges?" This rhetorical inquiry highlights the disconnect between continued police enforcement efforts and a justice system unwilling to prosecute possession offenses, effectively neutralizing law enforcement's ability to address public drug use through traditional means.

The MLA's frustration extends beyond theoretical concerns about policy coherence to observable consequences in communities across the province. From her perspective, the decriminalization experiment created conditions where public drug use flourished without effective intervention, leaving residents and businesses to cope with the resulting disorder.

The Failure of the Pilot

Sturko does not mince words when assessing the decriminalization pilot's performance, declaring unequivocally that "It didn't work. B.C.'s drug decriminalization plan is a fail." This assessment, while characteristically blunt, aligns with the provincial health minister's own admission that the experiment "hasn't delivered the results that we hoped for."

The gap between promised outcomes and actual results represents a fundamental concern for Sturko, who notes that advocates had promised "robust, scientific data" would emerge from the pilot to guide future policy decisions. Instead, she argues, the public has received vague assurances and minimal transparency about what specifically went wrong and why.

Concerns About Public Safety

Throughout her critique, Sturko emphasizes the public safety dimensions of drug policy that she believes received insufficient attention during the decriminalization experiment. The MLA points to observable increases in "public street disorder" as evidence that removing criminal consequences for possession without providing adequate treatment infrastructure produced predictable negative outcomes.

For community members who must navigate public spaces where open drug use has become normalized, these concerns carry immediate practical weight. Parents worry about children's exposure to dangerous substances in parks and playgrounds, businesses struggle with customers deterred by disorderly conditions, and vulnerable individuals themselves face increased risks in environments where drug use occurs without intervention or support.

The Rise in Public Disorder

Observable Consequences

Sturko paints a vivid picture of the conditions that emerged during the decriminalization period, describing scenes that would have been unthinkable before the policy change. "People cutting illicit powders on Tim Horton's tables, hospitals, everything," she recounts, illustrating the normalization of drug preparation and consumption in spaces previously considered safe and drug-free.

The reference to hospitals carries particular weight, as these institutions represent the intersection of health care and public space. When individuals process and use illicit drugs within medical facilities, it signals both the desperation of those struggling with addiction and the inability of existing systems to contain drug-related behavior within appropriate boundaries.

These observable consequences affect not only perceptions of public safety but actual safety outcomes, as open drug use creates environments where accidental exposure, public intoxication, and related harms become more likely. Communities that once experienced drug problems as relatively contained now face visible manifestations of addiction in everyday settings.

The Escalation Timeline

According to Sturko, the problems associated with decriminalization did not emerge suddenly but escalated over time as the policy's implications became fully realized. She notes that Premier David Eby began to "dial back on the experiment in 2024," suggesting that even proponents recognized mounting problems before the pilot's formal conclusion.

However, Sturko argues that these adjustments proved insufficient, as "the free-for-all continued in public places" despite attempted modifications. The gap between policy intentions and on-the-ground realities widened as individuals adapted to the new legal landscape in ways that policymakers had not anticipated.

Impact on Vulnerable Populations

While critics of decriminalization often focus on community impacts, Sturko also emphasizes the harm inflicted on addicted individuals themselves. The MLA argues that by removing legal pressure points that could "compel and guide people towards the help they actually need," the policy effectively abandoned vulnerable people to continued addiction without effective pathways to recovery.

This perspective challenges the framing of decriminalization as inherently compassionate, suggesting instead that true compassion requires active intervention to connect suffering individuals with treatment and support. From Sturko's viewpoint, policies that permit continued drug use without meaningful engagement represent a form of neglect rather than kindness.

The Enforcement Dilemma

Pointless Arrests

Sturko's central question about the purpose of arrests without charges exposes the logical inconsistency at the heart of the decriminalization approach as implemented in British Columbia. Police continued to encounter individuals possessing illegal drugs, but Crown prosecutors declined to pursue charges, creating a system where enforcement actions produced no meaningful consequences.

This disconnect wasted law enforcement resources while failing to achieve either public safety objectives or health outcomes. Officers who might have been deployed to address other community safety concerns instead engaged in interactions that led nowhere, their authority to intervene effectively neutralized by prosecutorial inaction.

Lost Opportunities for Intervention

Beyond resource concerns, Sturko emphasizes the lost opportunities for intervention represented by the decision to decriminalize without parallel investments in treatment capacity. When individuals come into contact with law enforcement for drug possession, that contact can serve as a gateway to services, a moment of crisis that opens willingness to accept help.

By removing legal consequences without providing alternative pathways to care, Sturko argues that British Columbia "diminished our opportunity to help compel and guide people towards the help they actually need." The leverage that the justice system might have provided to encourage treatment engagement disappeared, leaving addicted individuals with fewer rather than more reasons to seek recovery.

The Limits of Decriminalization

Sturko explicitly acknowledges that "we don't want to put everyone with an addiction in jail," recognizing that incarceration alone cannot solve complex substance use problems. However, she insists that for "many people in trouble with the law, it's the drug use that actually drives the bad behaviour," suggesting that addressing substance use represents a pathway to reducing broader criminal activity.

This nuanced position distinguishes between punitive responses to addiction itself and strategic use of legal consequences to motivate treatment engagement. The distinction matters for policy design, suggesting possibilities for approaches that employ criminal justice leverage without relying on incarceration as the primary intervention.

Calls for a Public Inquiry

Demand for Transparency

Sturko's frustration with the government's handling of the decriminalization pilot extends to what she characterizes as inadequate transparency about lessons learned. The MLA notes that officials promised "robust, scientific data" would emerge from the experiment, yet the public has received only vague statements that the policy "didn't work" without detailed explanation of why.

This lack of transparency fuels suspicion about what the government might be hiding. Sturko suggests that full disclosure could reveal uncomfortable truths about harms that officials ignored or underestimated during the policy's implementation.

The Political Calculus

Sturko speculates about political motivations behind resistance to a public inquiry, suggesting that "neither the provincial nor the federal government would like an inquiry into these things" because investigation could reveal evidence "that they ignored signs of harm being done on the population."

This interpretation positions the demand for transparency as a challenge to political accountability. If Sturko's suspicion proves correct, documents and testimony would demonstrate that officials continued pursuing a failing policy despite warning signs, raising questions about decision-making processes and responsiveness to community concerns.

What an Inquiry Could Reveal

The MLA suggests that a properly conducted inquiry would examine "the impacts on public safety" alongside other outcomes, providing comprehensive assessment of how decriminalization affected communities across the province. Such investigation could reveal patterns and consequences that remain obscured in the absence of systematic review.

For Sturko, this information matters not merely for retrospective accountability but for future policy design. Understanding precisely what went wrong with the decriminalization experiment could inform development of more effective approaches that avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Alternative Approaches: Looking to Alberta

The Alberta Model

Sturko explicitly praises approaches being implemented in neighboring Alberta, where policies emphasize intervention and treatment access. "I love what Alberta is doing," she volunteers, specifically noting the province's willingness to "intervene" in some cases where individuals require structured support.

Alberta's approach includes elements of compelled treatment, recognizing that some individuals suffering from severe addiction may lack capacity to voluntarily seek help and require more directive intervention. This model contrasts sharply with British Columbia's emphasis on removing barriers to drug use without corresponding obligations to engage with treatment services.

Adapting to B.C.'s Unique Context

While admiring Alberta's approach, Sturko acknowledges that British Columbia cannot simply transplant another province's model without adaptation. "We have a much larger problem, and we have a larger population of people with brain damage here," she notes, suggesting that the scale and nature of addiction in B.C. require customized solutions.

This recognition of B.C.'s particular challenges demonstrates policy sophistication beyond simple partisan criticism. Sturko appears to understand that effective approaches must account for local conditions, including the prevalence of substance use disorders and the characteristics of affected populations.

The Role of Compulsion

The question of whether and when to compel treatment for individuals with severe substance use disorders represents one of the most contentious issues in addiction policy. Critics worry that compulsion violates autonomy and may prove counterproductive, while proponents argue that some individuals require intervention to survive long enough to benefit from treatment.

Sturko's position, carefully articulated, does not advocate wholesale compulsion but rather selective intervention in appropriate cases. This nuanced stance acknowledges both the limits of voluntary approaches and the risks of coercive ones, seeking middle ground in polarized debates.

Conclusion: What Comes Next for B.C.

The conclusion of British Columbia's decriminalization experiment leaves the province at a policy crossroads, with failed approaches abandoned but new directions yet to be determined. MLA Elenore Sturko's critique highlights the need for accountability regarding what went wrong and careful consideration of what should come next.

The demand for a public inquiry reflects broader frustration with policy processes that appear to prioritize ideology over evidence and political convenience over transparency. Whether the government will accede to this demand remains uncertain, but pressure for answers seems likely to persist as communities continue grappling with addiction-related challenges.

As British Columbia moves forward, the lessons from this failed experiment should inform more effective approaches that balance compassion with accountability, health with public safety, and individual autonomy with community well-being. The path forward requires acknowledging mistakes while maintaining commitment to addressing the underlying crisis that made decriminalization seem necessary in the first place.

For Elenore Sturko and others who warned of these outcomes, the conclusion of the pilot represents vindication but not satisfaction. The harms that occurred during the experiment cannot be undone, and the work of developing better approaches remains ahead. Whether policymakers will engage that work with genuine openness to evidence and willingness to pursue what actually works, rather than what fits ideological preferences, will determine whether the next chapter of British Columbia's drug policy proves more successful than the last.