Addictions
Safe supply opioids based more on ideology than evidence?
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Those who advocate for them always claim the moral high ground because of ‘evidence-based studies.’ But such studies appear to be in short supply.
That’s probably why 72 BC doctors recently signed a letter that argues against safer supply, saying the evidence underlying the philosophy is “weak or inadequate.”
Almost three years into the experimental opiate “safer supply” program in British Columbia and no one, including those handing out the pills, seems to know if it is working or making the problem worse. There are no shortage of opinions arguing on either side of the debate, but recent reports suggest that the facts remain in short supply.
Safe supply initiatives fall under the broad category of harm reduction programs. For opiate addiction, the program typically involves the prescription and distribution of pills like hydromorphone, a medical-grade opioid that is as potent as heroin, to addicts. The underlying hope is that addicts will then forgo possibly-tainted, illicit street drugs in favour of the ‘safer’ government-provided pills.
More than 40,000 Canadians have lost their lives to opioid overdoses since 2016 and British Columbia is one of the world’s first jurisdictions to take the ‘safer supply’ route in an effort to quell opioid overdoses.
But BC’s Auditor General just released a report on the trial program and, so far, it remains unclear as to whether the program has made any progress. Opioid deaths are still increasing and, while the report doesn’t criticize the underlying philosophy of ‘safer supply,’ it does note “deficiencies in key areas.”
According to the report, the government is conducting the program in a rather haphazard way. BC health authorities failed to maintain basic standards for administering an experimental trial and neglected their obligation to publish data on how the program is doing. The data was supposed to be publicly available by September 2022, more than 18 months ago.
Instead, the report found that health authorities are overly reliant on incomplete and out-of-date fact sheets about the program’s performance. It also cited authorities for major failings in the management and delivery of the program.
The bureaucrats in charge claim that they have the data to support their claims about the success of the program, yet one has to wonder why — three years in — no data is available to support those claims.
A similar dearth of data has been noted in Ottawa where the House of Commons Health Committee has been exploring the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis. One doctor who leads a safer supply program in London, Ontario, appeared to be a strong advocate for safer supply programs, claiming that safe supply clinicians “rely on good research and published evidence.”
But Dr. Marcus Powlowski, a Liberal MP and medical doctor who also has a master’s degree in health law and policy from Harvard, had apparently looked at the papers that she proclaimed as evidence, and soundly renounced the studies as “basically a bunch of anecdotes.”
So where is this rigorous scientific evidence for safer supply programs?
Those who advocate for them always claim the moral high ground because of ‘evidence-based studies.’ But such studies appear to be in short supply.
That’s probably why 72 BC doctors recently signed a letter that argues against safer supply, saying the evidence underlying the philosophy is “weak or inadequate.” They called for all safer supply programs to be “tightly controlled, rigorously monitored, and meticulously documented.”
A lack of medical evidence is likely related to another major issue outlined in the Auditor General’s report – “prescriber hesitancy.” That is, there are only a limited number of doctors who are willing to write prescriptions for the potent opioids used in safer supply.
However, there is plenty of evidence for one disturbing aspect of this program – diversion. This is a practice whereby safer supply pills (primarily hydromorphone) given to addicts are subsequently sold (or diverted) to drug traffickers and/or organized crime groups to obtain more potent and illicit drugs like fentanyl.
In early March, the RCMP in Northern BC revealed that thousands of safe supply opiate pills had been seized as part of organized crime busts in Prince George and Campbell River. It was considered to be solid evidence that diversion of safer supply drugs was occurring. According to the RCMP spokesperson, “Organized crime groups are actively involved in the redistribution of safe supply and prescription drugs,” and “what has been deemed safe is not being kept safe.”
It is simply not realistic to expect that such practices are not occurring in our major cities. The National Post, the CBC and an independent filmmaker have all previously published evidence of diversion occurring in London, Ottawa and Vancouver, respectively.
Drug policies such as safe supply have long bypassed appropriate scientific scrutiny because they supposedly save lives. But the question still remains – do they? And at what cost to addicts and the rest of society?
Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.
Addictions
BC premier admits decriminalizing drugs was ‘not the right policy’
From LifeSiteNews
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.
Official figures show that overdoses went up during the decriminalization trial, with 3,313 deaths over 15 months, compared with 2,843 in the same time frame before drugs were temporarily legalized.
Addictions
Canada must make public order a priority again
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 Toronto, Ottawa 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.
-
Agriculture2 days agoFrom Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Health2 days agoSovereignty at Stake: Why Parliament Must Review Treaties Before They’re Signed
-
Business2 days ago$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Smith moves to protect Alberta in International Agreements
-
Uncategorized8 hours agoTrump Admin Establishing Council To Make Buildings Beautiful Again
-
DEI1 day agoConservative push to end Canada’s ‘anti-merit’ DEI programs receives support
-
Business1 day agoLiberals backtrack on bill banning large cash gifts, allowing police to search Canadians’ mail
-
Health1 day agoFor Anyone Planning on Getting or Mandating Others to Get an Influenza Vaccine (Flu Shot)




