Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Addictions

B.C. poll reveals clash between Indigenous views and drug policy

Published

9 minute read

By Alexandra Keeler

A supermajority of First Nations respondents disagree that criminalizing drug use is racist, challenging public health advocates’ assumptions

A new report shows a majority of British Columbians — and a plurality of all ethnic communities surveyed — disagree with the contention that drug criminalization policies are racist.

The findings challenge assertions made by prominent B.C. policymakers, who have advocated for drug decriminalization and harm-reduction initiatives on the grounds of anti-racism and reconciliation.

The report, published by the policy nonprofit Centre for Responsible Drug Policy and think tank Macdonald-Laurier Institute, draws from a poll of 6,300 B.C. adults that was commissioned by the centre and conducted by Mainstreet Research.

“Chinese and Indigenous leaders keep telling me that their communities are very anti-drug, but public health officials and harm-reduction activists keep saying that legalization is integral to anti-racism and reconciliation,” said Adam Zivo, a journalist and founder of the centre.

“Now we have data to show which side is more accurate.”

When asked whether criminalizing drug use is racist, just 22 per cent of all respondents agreed, while 60 per cent disagreed. Notably, 79 percent of the respondents identified as white.

Disagreement was strongest among First Nations respondents, with just nine per cent of the 172 Indigenous respondents agreeing that criminalization is racist and 67 per cent disagreeing.

Agreement was stronger among Asian communities, with East Asian and South Asian respondents being most likely to say criminalization policies are racist.

In the East Asian cohort, 42 per cent said they disagreed that criminalizing drug use is racist, while 36 per cent strongly agreed. Similarly, 46 per cent of South Asian respondents disagreed and 32 per cent agreed.

Self-determination

The poll challenges views articulated by some prominent B.C. policymakers and public health groups.

In July, B.C.’s provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, released a report asserting that drug policies prohibiting the use of hard drugs are rooted in racism and colonialism.

“Prohibitionist drug policies are deeply rooted in colonialism, reflecting and perpetuating systemic racism that disproportionately impacts Indigenous peoples,” Henry’s report says.

“These policies were designed to control marginalized populations and have led to over-incarceration, intergenerational trauma, and significant health disparities within these communities.”

Henry’s report contends that decriminalization policies — such as those implemented by B.C. as part of a three-year trial project that began January 2023 — can help to rectify these injustices by prioritizing health and safety over law enforcement.

Henry’s report was released mere months after B.C. rolled back some of its decriminalization measures in response to growing public concerns over decriminalization’s effects on community safety and order. Henry’s report, which is published by the BC Ministry of Health, urges the province to move in the opposite direction.

“This report’s recommendation is to continue to refine and expand prescribed alternatives to unregulated drugs, and critically, to explore implementation of models that do not require prescription,” Henry writes, referring to harm-reduction initiatives such as safer supply that dispense prescription opioids to drug users.

The report presents decriminalization as a move supported by Indigenous communities, citing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan. Action 4.12 aims to “address the disproportionate impacts of the overdose public health emergency on Indigenous Peoples by: applying to the Government of Canada to decriminalize simple possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use.”

The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, a policy advocacy group based out of Simon Fraser University, has similarly contended that drug criminalization is racist.

The coalition’s website says, “the demand by Black communities to decriminalize drugs and to immediately expunge records are a vital necessity for minimizing the racially disproportionate harms of drug criminalization, part of a broader struggle to end the war on Black communities.”

And in December 2023, the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, a national organization that advances harm-reduction nursing, obtained an injunction to prevent the B.C. government from imposing restrictions on public drug consumption.

The association alleged the government’s actions “would put people at greater risk of fatal overdose, make healthcare outreach more challenging, and drive racial discrimination, particularly against Indigenous people.”

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

Minority polling challenges

Some Indigenous groups have expressed reservations about blanket decriminalization policies in other contexts.

In January 2024, the First Nations Health Authority, an agency that manages health services for Indigenous communities in B.C., issued a statement acknowledging decriminalization may not be the best approach for all communities.

“FNHA acknowledges and supports the self-determination of each First Nations community when considering implementing this exemption,” the statement reads, referring to the three-year exemption B.C. obtained from federal laws prohibiting the use of hard drugs.

First Nations Health Authority has emphasized the need for culturally informed approaches that prioritize community health and safety and advocated for nuanced strategies tailored to each community’s specific needs.

The Mainstreet Research poll reveals challenges in accurately representing the views of B.C.’s smaller ethnic communities.

While non-white Canadians make up 40 per cent of B.C.’s population, they accounted for only 16 per cent of the poll’s 6,300 respondents.

Responses by Black, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian respondents were excluded from the current analysis because sample sizes were too small, numbering below 100. The English-only and automated telephone polling format may also increase uncertainty.

As the poll focused primarily on B.C. and broad drug policy questions, its findings underscore the need for a deeper understanding of community beliefs to inform drug policies.

The Centre for Responsible Drug Policy is releasing the polling data and its report on a “preliminary” basis so it can inform drug policy discussions ahead of provincial elections, which are taking place this October in B.C., Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.

But Mainstreet Research is continuing to gather data, aiming for a final survey size of more than 12,000 respondents. Once completed, the survey will be one of the largest polls on harm reduction ever conducted in Canada.

“The final report, set to be released later this year, will include larger samples from B.C.’s diverse ethnic communities, providing further clarity on their beliefs,” Zivo said.


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. Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Addictions

BC premier admits decriminalizing drugs was ‘not the right policy’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Premier David Eby acknowledged that British Columbia’s liberal policy on hard drugs ‘became was a permissive structure that … resulted in really unhappy consequences.’

The Premier of Canada’s most drug-permissive province admitted that allowing the decriminalization of hard drugs in British Columbia via a federal pilot program was a mistake.

Speaking at a luncheon organized by the Urban Development Institute last week in Vancouver, British Columbia, Premier David Eby said, “I was wrong … it was not the right policy.”

Eby said that allowing hard drug users not to be fined for possession was “not the right policy.

“What it became was a permissive structure that … resulted in really unhappy consequences,” he noted, as captured by Western Standard’s Jarryd Jäger.

LifeSiteNews reported that the British Columbia government decided to stop a so-called “safe supply” free drug program in light of a report revealing many of the hard drugs distributed via pharmacies were resold on the black market.

Last year, the Liberal government was forced to end a three-year drug decriminalizing experiment, the brainchild of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, in British Columbia that allowed people to have small amounts of cocaine and other hard drugs. However, public complaints about social disorder went through the roof during the experiment.

This is not the first time that Eby has admitted he was wrong.

Trudeau’s loose drug initiatives were deemed such a disaster in British Columbia that Eby’s government asked Trudeau to re-criminalize narcotic use in public spaces, a request that was granted.

Records show that the Liberal government has spent approximately $820 million from 2017 to 2022 on its Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy. However, even Canada’s own Department of Health in a 2023 report admitted that the Liberals’ drug program only had “minimal” results.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Canada must make public order a priority again

Published on

A Toronto park

Public disorder has cities crying out for help. The solution cannot simply be to expand our public institutions’ crisis services

[This editorial was originally published by Canadian Affairs and has been republished with permission]

This week, Canada’s largest public transit system, the Toronto Transit Commission, announced it would be stationing crisis worker teams directly on subway platforms to improve public safety.

Last week, Canada’s largest library, the Toronto Public Library, announced it would be increasing the number of branches that offer crisis and social support services. This builds on a 2023 pilot project between the library and Toronto’s Gerstein Crisis Centre to service people experiencing mental health, substance abuse and other issues.

The move “only made sense,” Amanda French, the manager of social development at Toronto Public Library, told CBC.

Does it, though?

Over the past decade, public institutions — our libraries, parks, transit systems, hospitals and city centres — have steadily increased the resources they devote to servicing the homeless, mentally ill and drug addicted. In many cases, this has come at the expense of serving the groups these spaces were intended to serve.

For some communities, it is all becoming too much.

Recently, some cities have taken the extraordinary step of calling states of emergency over the public disorder in their communities. This September, both Barrie, Ont. and Smithers, B.C. did so, citing the public disorder caused by open drug use, encampments, theft and violence.

In June, Williams Lake, B.C., did the same. It was planning to “bring in an 11 p.m. curfew and was exploring involuntary detention when the province directed an expert task force to enter the city,” The Globe and Mail reported last week.

These cries for help — which Canadian Affairs has also reported on in TorontoOttawa and Nanaimo — must be taken seriously. The solution cannot simply be more of the same — to further expand public institutions’ crisis services while neglecting their core purposes and clientele.

Canada must make public order a priority again.

Without public order, Canadians will increasingly cease to patronize the public institutions that make communities welcoming and vibrant. Businesses will increasingly close up shop in city centres. This will accelerate community decline, creating a vicious downward spiral.

We do not pretend to have the answers for how best to restore public order while also addressing the very real needs of individuals struggling with homelessness, mental illness and addiction.

But we can offer a few observations.

First, Canadians must be willing to critically examine our policies.

Harm-reduction policies — which correlate with the rise of public disorder — should be at the top of the list.

The aim of these policies is to reduce the harms associated with drug use, such as overdose or infection. They were intended to be introduced alongside investments in other social supports, such as recovery.

But unlike Portugal, which prioritized treatment alongside harm reduction, Canada failed to make these investments. For this and other reasons, many experts now say our harm-reduction policies are not working.

“Many of my addiction medicine colleagues have stopped prescribing ‘safe supply’ hydromorphone to their patients because of the high rates of diversion … and lack of efficacy in stabilizing the substance use disorder (sometimes worsening it),” Dr. Launette Rieb, a clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia and addiction medicine specialist recently told Canadian Affairs.

Yet, despite such damning claims, some Canadians remain closed to the possibility that these policies may need to change. Worse, some foster a climate that penalizes dissent.

“Many doctors who initially supported ‘safe supply’ no longer provide it but do not wish to talk about it publicly for fear of reprisals,” Rieb said.

Second, Canadians must look abroad — well beyond the United States — for policy alternatives.

As The Globe and Mail reported in August, Canada and the U.S. have been far harder hit by the drug crisis than European countries.

The article points to a host of potential factors, spanning everything from doctors’ prescribing practices to drug trade flows to drug laws and enforcement.

For example, unlike Canada, most of Europe has not legalized cannabis, the article says. European countries also enforce their drug laws more rigorously.

“According to the UN, Europe arrests, prosecutes and convicts people for drug-related offences at a much higher rate than that of the Americas,” it says.

Addiction treatment rates also vary.

“According to the latest data from the UN, 28 per cent of people with drug use disorders in Europe received treatment. In contrast, only 9 per cent of those with drug use disorders in the Americas received treatment.”

And then there is harm reduction. No other country went “whole hog” on harm reduction the way Canada did, one professor told The Globe.

If we want public order, we should look to the countries that are orderly and identify what makes them different — in a good way.

There is no shame in copying good policies. There should be shame in sticking with failed ones due to ideology.

 

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

consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X