Connect with us

Addictions

Man jailed for trafficking diverted safer supply drugs, sparking fresh debate over B.C. drug policies

Published

10 minute read

By Alexandra Keeler

Nanaimo drug trafficker’s case is further evidence of safer supply diversion. But some sources say even diverted drugs reduce harm

In early May, 68-year-old Ronald Schilling of Nanaimo, B.C., was sentenced to three years in prison for trafficking street drugs such as fentanyl and meth — as well as government-supplied opioids.

When authorities had arrested Schilling two years earlier, they had found him in possession of more than 80 government-supplied opioid pill bottles labeled with other patients’ names.

Those pills had been dispensed to patients under B.C.’s “prescribed alternatives” program, more commonly known as safer supply. The program aims to reduce overdose deaths by dispensing pharmaceutical opioids to drug users as an alternative to toxic street drugs.

In Schilling, patients of this program had found a drug dealer who was willing to give them harder drugs — such as fentanyl — in exchange for their prescription opioids. Schilling would in turn sell their prescription opioids to others.

“Mr. Schilling preyed upon people who were taking the safe supply drug,” Provincial Court Judge Karen Whonnock said during the sentencing hearing.

Schilling’s case is further evidence that safer supply opioids are making their way to the streets — and having unintended negative consequences. However, some sources say even diverted pills reduce harm if they flood the market with safer drugs.

‘Upside Down’

Schilling, a former charity worker, developed a cocaine addiction after the sudden death of his partner. He ultimately turned to drug trafficking to fund his addiction, according to his lawyer.

In court, the prosecution described Schilling as operating a mid-level drug trafficking scheme that exploited B.C.’s safer supply program.

Schilling coordinated with multiple dealers to source both illicit and prescription drugs, and had at least three individuals working under him. His text messages showed he would arrange to meet clients near Nanaimo’s Outreach Pharmacy to trade potent street drugs for the prescribed medications they had just received.

He operated under the name “Upside Down Inc.” — “down” being a street reference to fentanyl — and had business cards to match. To reassure users that the street drugs were safe, he would have them tested at a local overdose prevention site.

‘Predatory behaviour’

While Schilling’s case is unusual, it adds to the growing body of evidence that provincial safer supply programs are not always being used as intended.

In one example, a B.C. government report released in February revealed that more than 60 pharmacies were involved in a kick-back scheme, offering patients cash or rewards to fill safer supply prescriptions they did not need. Some of those drugs were then sold on the black market.

Collen Middleton, a co-founder of the Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association, refers to safer supply drugs as the “perfect consumer product.”

“They are a product that produces its own demand, because it’s addictive,” said Middleton, whose neighbourhood association is a vocal critic of safer supply.

One of Middleton’s concerns is that safer supply drugs are presented as safe, despite being addictive themselves. He says this makes them an effective gateway to more dangerous street drugs like fentanyl.

“Those drugs are being marketed as safe to kids … [so] you’re bringing more people into using addictive drugs, more abuse, more predatory behaviour toward a vulnerable segment of the population,” he said.

The B.C. Ministry of Health told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement that it takes the “diversion of prescription medications … very seriously.”

“The unauthorized distribution is illegal and puts the public at risk,” it said.

In response to the B.C. pharmacy scandal, the province tightened its protocols for dispensing prescription opioids. All new and most existing patients must take prescription opioids under the supervision of health-care professionals, a protocol known as witnessed dosing. In rare cases, existing clients may continue to take their doses offsite if the prescriber views the risk of diversion as low.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

Mixed evidence

In its statement to Canadian Affairs, B.C.’s health ministry also said its safer supply program “plays an important role in reducing substance use-related harms” and can lower overdose risk by as much as 91 per cent.

This figure comes from a 2024 B.C. study published in the British Medical Journal. That study found individuals prescribed pharmaceutical opioids early in the pandemic were 91 per cent less likely to die from any cause in the week after receiving at least four days of safer supply opioids, compared to a control group.

The study only tracked outcomes during the week following prescription fills. It did not verify whether individuals took the opioids as prescribed.

study published in April in The Lancet Public Health shows B.C.’s safer supply programs are linked to improved short-term health outcomes, including fewer overdoses and hospital visits.

However, a population-level study in JAMA Health Forum found no significant reduction in overdoses or mortality associated with B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies. It also suggested possible increases in emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

Comprehensive long-term research on the health impacts of Canadian safer supply programs is limited.

Creating a market

Some sources say the diversion of prescription opioids may be less harmful than the alternatives.

“If you could replace [street] drugs with safer pharmaceutical alternatives, people’s needs would be met,” said Perry Kendall, B.C.’s former provincial health officer and a long-time harm reduction advocate.

“They wouldn’t have to turn to the illicit market, and their risk of a toxic drug overdose would be significantly reduced.”

In Kendall’s view, Schilling was in some ways functioning as a harm-reduction worker.

“[Schilling] was kind of offering a harm reduction service, as well as supplying people with the drugs they wanted,” Kendall said.

Kendall’s views are echoed in a 2023 B.C. government review that notes diversion of safer supply drugs to people already at risk of drug poisoning may be beneficial. But the review also acknowledges that diversion to users who would not otherwise use unregulated drugs is harmful.

Still, Kendall acknowledged a fundamental issue: “[Safer supply opioids don’t] really give you the same high [as fentanyl]. So if you can trade [them] to … get what you’re looking for, which is fentanyl, then that’s what you will do.”

Leonard Krog, the mayor of Nanaimo, says it is clear that, within Nanaimo, B.C.’s policies to help drug users are making it easier for dealers to sell their toxic drugs.

“We have a safe injection site next to City Hall, and there’s no question dealers are coming down here and they’re selling their stuff, because the market’s right here,” said Krog.

But Kendall warns that pulling back on decriminalization and safer supply programs creates a dangerous gap.

“The daftest thing you can do is create a market of desperate people and then fail to fill it,” said Kendall. “Somebody’s going to meet those needs — and they’re not going to be law-abiding citizens.”

Krog is unconvinced.

“If we make it easier for the wolves to successfully exploit the sheep, is that a good thing?”


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.


Subscribe to Break The Needle

Launched a year ago
Break The Needle provides news and analysis on addiction and crime in Canada.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Addictions

News For Those Who Think Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Published on

A Canadian poll finds that racial minorities don’t believe drug enforcement is bigoted.

By Adam Zivo

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research]

Is drug prohibition racist? Many left-wing institutions seem to think so. But their argument is historically illiterate—and it contradicts recent polling data, too, which show that minorities overwhelmingly reject that view.

Policies and laws are tools to establish order. Like any tool, they can be abused. The first drug laws in North America, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguably fixated on opium as a legal pretext to harass Asian immigrants, for example. But no reasonable person would argue that laws against home invasion, murder, or theft are “racist” because they have been misapplied in past cases. Absent supporting evidence, leaping from “this tool is sometimes used in racist ways” to “this tool is essentially racist” is kindergarten-level reasoning.

Yet this is precisely what institutions and activist groups throughout the Western world have done. The Drug Policy Alliance, a U.S.-based organization, suggests that drug prohibition is rooted in “racism and fear.” Harm Reduction International, a British NGO, argues for legalization on the grounds that drug prohibition entrenches “racialized hierarchies, which were established under colonial control and continue to dominate today.” In Canada, where I live, the top public health official in British Columbia, our most drug-permissive province, released a pro-legalization report last summer claiming that prohibition is “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classism and human rights violations.”

These claims ignore how drug prohibition has been and remains popular in many non-European societies. Sharia law has banned the use of mind-altering substances since the seventh century. When Indigenous leaders negotiated treaties with Canadian colonists in the late 1800s, they asked for “the exclusion of fire water (whiskey)” from their communities. That same century, China’s Qing Empire banned opium amid a national addiction crisis. “Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality,” the Daoguang emperor wrote in an 1810 edict.

Today, Asian and Muslim jurisdictions impose much stiffer penalties on drug offenders than do Western nations. In countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Singapore, and Thailand, addicts and traffickers are given lengthy prison sentences or executed. Meantime, in Canada and the United States, de facto decriminalization has left urban cores littered with syringes and shrouded in clouds of meth.

The anti-drug backlash building in North America appears to be spearheaded by racial minorities. When Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s former district attorney, was recalled in 2022, support for his ouster was highest among Asian voters. Last fall, 73 percent of Latinos backed California’s Proposition 36, which heightened penalties for drug crimes, while only 58 percent of white respondents did.

In Canada, the first signs of a parallel trend emerged during Vancouver’s 2022 municipal election, where an apparent surge in Chinese Canadian support helped install a slate of pro-police candidates. Then, in British Columbia’s provincial election last autumn, nonwhite voters strongly preferred the BC Conservatives, who campaigned on stricter drug laws. And in last month’s federal election, within both Vancouver and Toronto’s metropolitan areas, tough-on-crime conservatives received considerable support from South Asian communities.

These are all strong indicators that racial minorities do not, in fact, universally favor drug legalization. But their small population share means there is relatively little polling data to measure their preferences. Since only 7.6 percent of Americans are Asian, for example, a poll of 1,000 randomly selected people will yield an average of only 76 Asian respondents—too small a sample from which to draw meaningful conclusions. You can overcome this barrier by commissioning very large polls, but that’s expensive.

Nonetheless, last autumn, the Centre for Responsible Drug Policy (a nonprofit I founded and operate) did just that. In partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we contracted Mainstreet Research to ask over 12,000 British Columbians: “Do you agree or disagree that criminalizing drugs is racist?”

The results undermine progressives’ assumptions. Only 26 percent of nonwhite respondents agreed (either strongly or weakly) that drug criminalization is racist, while over twice as many (56 percent) disagreed. The share of nonwhite respondents who strongly disagreed was three times larger than the share that strongly agreed (43.2 percent versus 14.3 percent). These results are fairly conclusive for this jurisdiction, given the poll’s sample size of 2,233 nonwhite respondents and a margin of error of 2 percent.

Notably, Indigenous respondents seemed to be the most anti-drug ethnic group: only 20 percent agreed (weakly or strongly) with the “criminalization is racist” narrative, while 61 percent disagreed. Once again, those who disagreed were much more vehement than those who agreed. With a sample size of 399 respondents, the margin of error here (5 percent) is too small to confound these dramatic results.

We saw similar outcomes for other minority groups, such as South Asians, Southeast Asians, Latinos, and blacks. While Middle Eastern respondents also seemed to follow this trend, the poll included too few of them to draw definitive conclusions. Only East Asians were divided on the issue, though a clear majority still disagreed that criminalization is racist.

As this poll was limited to British Columbian respondents, our findings cannot necessarily be assumed to hold throughout Canada and the United States. But since the province is arguably the most drug-permissive jurisdiction within the two countries, these results could represent the ceiling of pro-drug, anti-criminalization attitudes among minority communities.

Legalization proponents and their progressive allies take pride in being “anti-racist.” Our polling, however, suggests that they are not listening to the communities they profess to care about.

 

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,

please consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Why the U.S. Shouldn’t Copy Canada’s Experiment with Free Drugs

Published on

By Adam Zivo

Harm-reduction activists claim evidence supports “safer supply,” but their studies don’t back that up.

Canada, where I call home, is the only jurisdiction in the world that hands out free addictive drugs to addicts. Under the “safer-supply” policy, Canadian health authorities distribute hydromorphone—an opioid as potent as heroin—as well as, to a lesser degree, oxycodone, pharmaceutical fentanyl, and mild stimulants. These drugs are provided at no cost and, until recently, rarely had to be consumed under medical supervision.

Some American harm-reduction activists claim that Canada’s experience—and studies of it—prove that safer supply saves lives. In reality, the studies they cite are deeply flawed. They rely on weak methodologies, including biased interviews and self-reported surveys, and fail to isolate the effects of safer supply from those of other interventions. U.S. policymakers should not let such shaky evidence justify similarly misguided policies at home.

Canada piloted safer supply in 2016 with no evidence that it worked. Some clinical trials suggested that administering pharmaceutical-grade heroin under careful medical supervision could stabilize severely addicted drug users. But advocates took this evidence and claimed that it supported their safer-supply experiment, despite crucial dissimilarities—the most important being the lack of witnessed consumption.

Over the following years, radical activist-scholars produced numerous evaluations and studies declaring that safer supply “saves lives” and improves recipients’ quality of life. As Canada expanded program access nationwide in 2020, policymakers latched on to this “evidence-based” experiment, condemning critics as anti-science.

This evidence is predominantly composed of qualitative studies, which rely not on data but on interviews with safer-supply recipients and providers. The interviewees naturally say that the program is wonderful and has few downsides. Advocates then frame these responses as objective evidence of success.

Notably, the studies never reach out to those who might provide negative evaluations of safer supply—doctors, addicts uninvolved with these programs, or individuals newly in recovery. Addiction experts throughout Canada have dismissed these studies as glorified customer testimonials.

Some studies involve surveys, converting patient responses into quantitative data that can be statistically analyzed. For example, the London InterCommunity Health Centre (LIHC), one of Canada’s leading safer-supply prescribers, publishes survey-based evaluations that claim approximately half of its patients reduced their fentanyl consumption after enrollment. This quantitative method does not change the unreliability of self-reported data, however, and there’s nothing that keeps patients from giving false answers if it suits their interests.

2024 study conducted by Brian Conway, director of Vancouver’s Infectious Disease Centre, indirectly validated these criticisms. The study distributed surveys to 50 of his safer-supply patients and then collected urine samples immediately afterward. Conway discovered that, while only 4 percent of these patients self-reported diverting (selling or trading) all their safer-supply hydromorphone, 24 percent had no hydromorphone in their urine. That suggests a significant portion of patients lied on their surveys.

A few studies use administrative health data to show that enrollment in federally funded safer-supply programs correlates with improved health outcomes. But these studies make no effort to determine whether the free drugs themselves are responsible. The real driver could be the extensive wraparound services the programs offer, such as housing assistance and access to primary care. It’s like giving an obese man a personal trainer and a daily slice of cake—and then, when he loses weight, crediting the cake.

Last year, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) published a study in the British Medical Journal examining the health data of 5,882 drug users over an 18-month period between 2020 and 2021. The study found that individuals who received safer-supply opioids were 61 percent less likely to die over the following week than those who didn’t. This number rose to 91 percent for those receiving safer-supply opioids for four or more days in a single week.

Encouraging, right? But not so fast. When a team of seven addiction physicians reviewed the study, they discovered that the researchers misrepresented their data. Safer-supply patients are often co-prescribed traditional addiction medications, such as methadone and Suboxone, that have long been proven to reduce overdoses and deaths (these medications are often referred to as opioid agonist therapy, or OAT). The study data showed that safer-supply patients who did not also receive OAT medications were just as likely to die as those who did not get safer supply. In other words, the benefits that the BCCDC researchers touted were likely driven primarily by OAT, not safer supply.

The study data also showed no significant mortality reductions after one year of accessing safer supply. One wonders why the researchers chose to fixate on the one-week follow-up numbers.

Most recently, a study published in JAMA Health Forum found that, between 2020 and 2022, British Columbia’s safer-supply policy was associated with a 33 percent increase in opioid hospitalizations and no change to drug-related mortality. The researchers arrived at this conclusion by comparing the province’s publicly available health data with data from a control group made up of a handful of other Canadian provinces. The study raised further doubts about safer supply’s scientific basis.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Over the past two years, Canadian policymakers have openly, if reluctantly, acknowledged that safer supply is not as well-supported as they once claimed. British Columbia’s 2023 safer supply fentanyl protocols clearly state, for example, that “there is no evidence available supporting this intervention, safety data, or established best practices for when and how to provide it.” Similarly, the province’s top doctor released a report in early 2024 admitting that the experiment is “not fully evidence based.” Just last autumn, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Matters acknowledged in a major presentation that safer supply is supported by “essentially low-level evidence.”

This about-face has been hastened by investigative media reports confirming that safer-supply drugs were being diverted to the black market, enriching organized crime and corrupt pharmacies in the process. Public support for the policy has apparently declined, as once-taboo criticism becomes normalized among Canadian politicians and commentators. The Canadian federal government has now quietly defunded its safer-supply programs (though independent prescribers still operate), while British Columbia mandated earlier this year that all safer-supply drugs be consumed under supervision.

Harm-reduction activists nonetheless maintain that the blowback against safer supply represents a “moral panic,” and that politics is overriding evidence-based policymaking. “Safer supply saves lives! Follow the science!” they insist. International policymakers, especially in the United States, should see through these misrepresentations.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X