While some government stakeholders have finally admitted that safer supply harms communities in some ways, they’ve decided that this doesn’t matter that much.
The thing that keeps confounding me is the motivation to keep these programs going. What is the conspiracy that underlies this program? Are these people, out of the goodness of their hearts, so convinced that this will work that they're not willing to hear any naysayers? Or, more nefariously, are they in the pockets of the drug companies that produce the supply? Or is it something else entirely? If these people get so aggressive when told this isn't working, I really want to know why.
And the news this week in BC is that hospitals are being ordered to provide facilities where patients can take their illicit drugs as health care workers are being exposed to them. The court is blocking BC from banning illicit drug use in schoolyards! It seems very clear that this "harm reduction" approach is causing harm to society as a whole, safe supply and decriminalization and removing "stigma" is all proving to be nonsense. Interesting that Oregon is recriminalizing now, having partially ruined cities like Portland through decrim. The collective rights of the taxpaying, non-drug using, law-abiding population are being ignored... the only word for this is "woke" and no doubt will cause a swing to the political right eventually.
Congratulations on your brave reporting. Your fight on this issue mirrors the fight on puberty blockers. People who have invested their reputations in "safer supply" and "automatic affirmation" have a stake in refusing to see what's in front of their face. (This also applies to journalists who have chosen advocacy over reporting.)
Well written, thoughtful and so very frightening. What is even worse is we struggle to pay for the cancer drugs that pair with chemotherapy while we waste huge amounts of money and resources to this program and watch our communities become unglued. I do not understand where we lost our ability to look at the facts and have handed over our decision making based on special interest group pressure that is not based on fact only who bullies the best online and hunts down and shames anyone that has the courage to stand up and tell the truth. We need to decide as a people that enough is enough. My kingdom (very small that it is) for common sense leadership in all areas of government.
Mr. Zivo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the work he has put into researching and writing about the safe supply harms that are being inflicted on communities all across Canada.
It is also appropriate to acknowledge the trust that he has built with influential addictions specialists and the patience it must take to bring these people on side and willing to speak on the record.
Zivo’s articles are a tremendous public service and a testament to good old fashioned journalism that isn’t afraid to point out that public policy can be harmful and needs revision.
My eyes were first opened to the complexities and political nature of safer supply programs through the 2 part article the Line ran last year about the Alberta model. Until then I was largely oblivious to it - but now I am really grateful for the hard line Alberta has taken against safer supply. There are many medications where there's no such thing as a "safe" amount and I think it's meaningful that even the governments who support this "safer" supply don't call it safe - just safer. It sounds like the kind of thing someone says "well this would probably make a difference and there's no harm so let's try it" without really thinking through the downstream effects and risks to the population as a whole. Sort of like - what could possibly go wrong with eliminating "x" species of troublesome pest? Well - sometimes whole ecosystems are dependent on that pest and huge things can go wrong.
I think the biggest tragedy here is that rather than owning mistakes, there is an admission of mistakes but a refusal to change course - it's like they're so close to the iceberg that they don't see any way to not hit it and they're not even going to try to apply the brakes. Except in this case - the longer safer supply continues, the more people will be harmed by it. There was a point during covid where it was clear governments needed to change direction and they were resistant to it. I guess changing direction isn't something governments do well - especially when they've turned it into a hot-button political topic (or when there are activists heavily involved.) BUT that is part of the job - change leadership. Most people are reasonable if you explain what you've learned and the reason you are making different recommendations now. And even if they aren't, the lives saved and the ACTUAL harm reduction, matters. If governments and public health TRULY cared about addicts, they would care about having an evidence based approach that actually helped them regain and resume their lives. It's somewhat ironic that they call those who question safer supply as being biased against those with addiction - yet ultimately their policies aren't doing anything to help people with addiction and may actually be directly harming them.
The root problem is that the advocates for measures like safe supply have either lost sight of the fact that drug use is the actual problem, or have never accepted that fact in the first place. There's several different interest groups pushing this policy. The most sympathetic are the first responders and harm reduction workers who see people dropping dead due to overdoses from fentanyl. They just want to make that stop, and conclude that a drug supply with a known quality will reduce the chance of overdose. Then there's the group who think that a major problem for drug addicts is their stigmatization and need to engage in criminal activities to feed their addictions. They conclude that a safe, legal supply of drugs will stabilize them and reduce harm. Finally, there's a group who think that drug use is just fine and the current problems are entirely attributable to government oppression.
The problem is that these drugs *aren't* safe to use for recreational purposes. Safe supply just kills the users more slowly. Removing the stigmatization and increasing access results in more drug addiction. The same public health officials who treat the idea of selling beer and wine in grocery stores as a catastrophic trigger for alcoholism don't seem particularly concerned about increasing access to highly addictive drugs like opiates.
The safe supply advocates have somehow also talked themselves into thinking this is a necessary and vital intervention, and anybody opposed is heartless, cruel, and ignorant. For most people, though, the alternative to this approach isn't non-intervention or neglect. They want a *much greater* level of intervention where drug addicts are pushed into treatment and rehabilitation, or at least taken off the streets and cared for in appropriate residential facilities. That's the sort of approach taken in places like the Netherlands and Portugal, but the activists here only glom onto the "decriminalization" element of it. It's basically a Cargo Cult approach to dealing with drug addiction, like those Pacific islanders who'd build fake airfields trying to lure planes full of cargo to their islands after the end of WW2.
That is truly great work and also a great shame on government “leaders” trying to sweep the devastating effects of their failed policies on “safer supply” under the rug. It seems their interest lies not in the welfare of addicts but rather in more virtue signalling at their expanse.
Enlightening article! So frustrating that the people in charge are not open to criticism and do not consider it in good faith. What is up with provincial and federal govts that they don’t want the truth known…do they not yet know that the truth is welcomed by most Canadians.
Excellent piece. Yes the high school students know what’s going on for sure.
Diversion benefits the addicts who can stay medicated and make some extra coin and perhaps organized crime who pick up new business from the new addicts created by diversion.
Anyone who has had major surgery will be aware of how quickly these opioids become an addiction. The fact that government supplied hydro morphine is being diverted to the black market is far too high a price.
Addicts are people in trouble - they’re not stupid. Very resourceful.
The naive ideologues who believe they’re defending addicts from stigma are mistaken. But their amplification in social media behind the veil of anonymity makes speaking out more difficult for experts trying to live a normal happy life without the nightmare of threats and intimidation.
My humble advice to those fearing government retribution is to toughen up. The benefit of your clinical experience, years of study and expertise are needed in this country. ( I’m thinking now of Dr. Henry Morgenthaler and the personal sacrifice he made for abortion access in Canada. )
The fact that people were intimidated is a huge cause for concern.
This is a new program that has had unintended consequences. It is our responsibility to speak out as the nurses in BC have started to do on the legalization of public drug use, particularly in a hospital setting.
Another sad commentary on the ideological biases of many of those in public office. Welll written and very informative. It’s the type of reporting we, the reading public, need far more of to keep us informed.
so many echoes of the youth trans/gender ideology movement: a lack of sound scientific data to support the treatment, knowledgeable experts afraid to speak out, activists quick to vilify dissenters, a very slow turning of the ship after a few brave souls come forward.
So the Government is treating critics of "safe supply" in the same manner they treated critics of the Covid response - gaslighting, discrediting, threats, and lies. Those who still believe that "anti-vaxxers" were full of disinformation should take note. I can hardly believe it, but now could it be possible that the BC NDP might actually lose the next election? One can hope.
Great investigative work, Adam. Keep going, we need journalists like you to keep surfacing truth.
The thing that keeps confounding me is the motivation to keep these programs going. What is the conspiracy that underlies this program? Are these people, out of the goodness of their hearts, so convinced that this will work that they're not willing to hear any naysayers? Or, more nefariously, are they in the pockets of the drug companies that produce the supply? Or is it something else entirely? If these people get so aggressive when told this isn't working, I really want to know why.
And the news this week in BC is that hospitals are being ordered to provide facilities where patients can take their illicit drugs as health care workers are being exposed to them. The court is blocking BC from banning illicit drug use in schoolyards! It seems very clear that this "harm reduction" approach is causing harm to society as a whole, safe supply and decriminalization and removing "stigma" is all proving to be nonsense. Interesting that Oregon is recriminalizing now, having partially ruined cities like Portland through decrim. The collective rights of the taxpaying, non-drug using, law-abiding population are being ignored... the only word for this is "woke" and no doubt will cause a swing to the political right eventually.
Congratulations on your brave reporting. Your fight on this issue mirrors the fight on puberty blockers. People who have invested their reputations in "safer supply" and "automatic affirmation" have a stake in refusing to see what's in front of their face. (This also applies to journalists who have chosen advocacy over reporting.)
Well written, thoughtful and so very frightening. What is even worse is we struggle to pay for the cancer drugs that pair with chemotherapy while we waste huge amounts of money and resources to this program and watch our communities become unglued. I do not understand where we lost our ability to look at the facts and have handed over our decision making based on special interest group pressure that is not based on fact only who bullies the best online and hunts down and shames anyone that has the courage to stand up and tell the truth. We need to decide as a people that enough is enough. My kingdom (very small that it is) for common sense leadership in all areas of government.
Mr. Zivo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the work he has put into researching and writing about the safe supply harms that are being inflicted on communities all across Canada.
It is also appropriate to acknowledge the trust that he has built with influential addictions specialists and the patience it must take to bring these people on side and willing to speak on the record.
Zivo’s articles are a tremendous public service and a testament to good old fashioned journalism that isn’t afraid to point out that public policy can be harmful and needs revision.
My eyes were first opened to the complexities and political nature of safer supply programs through the 2 part article the Line ran last year about the Alberta model. Until then I was largely oblivious to it - but now I am really grateful for the hard line Alberta has taken against safer supply. There are many medications where there's no such thing as a "safe" amount and I think it's meaningful that even the governments who support this "safer" supply don't call it safe - just safer. It sounds like the kind of thing someone says "well this would probably make a difference and there's no harm so let's try it" without really thinking through the downstream effects and risks to the population as a whole. Sort of like - what could possibly go wrong with eliminating "x" species of troublesome pest? Well - sometimes whole ecosystems are dependent on that pest and huge things can go wrong.
I think the biggest tragedy here is that rather than owning mistakes, there is an admission of mistakes but a refusal to change course - it's like they're so close to the iceberg that they don't see any way to not hit it and they're not even going to try to apply the brakes. Except in this case - the longer safer supply continues, the more people will be harmed by it. There was a point during covid where it was clear governments needed to change direction and they were resistant to it. I guess changing direction isn't something governments do well - especially when they've turned it into a hot-button political topic (or when there are activists heavily involved.) BUT that is part of the job - change leadership. Most people are reasonable if you explain what you've learned and the reason you are making different recommendations now. And even if they aren't, the lives saved and the ACTUAL harm reduction, matters. If governments and public health TRULY cared about addicts, they would care about having an evidence based approach that actually helped them regain and resume their lives. It's somewhat ironic that they call those who question safer supply as being biased against those with addiction - yet ultimately their policies aren't doing anything to help people with addiction and may actually be directly harming them.
We truly live in a post-truth world, where facts don't matter and government propaganda is the only truth. Orwell was beyond prescient.
When I read this, I wish those crooks were beaten savagely by an angry mob of parents of dead children who overdosed on these drugs.
I'm not advocating for it, merely fantasizing.
The root problem is that the advocates for measures like safe supply have either lost sight of the fact that drug use is the actual problem, or have never accepted that fact in the first place. There's several different interest groups pushing this policy. The most sympathetic are the first responders and harm reduction workers who see people dropping dead due to overdoses from fentanyl. They just want to make that stop, and conclude that a drug supply with a known quality will reduce the chance of overdose. Then there's the group who think that a major problem for drug addicts is their stigmatization and need to engage in criminal activities to feed their addictions. They conclude that a safe, legal supply of drugs will stabilize them and reduce harm. Finally, there's a group who think that drug use is just fine and the current problems are entirely attributable to government oppression.
The problem is that these drugs *aren't* safe to use for recreational purposes. Safe supply just kills the users more slowly. Removing the stigmatization and increasing access results in more drug addiction. The same public health officials who treat the idea of selling beer and wine in grocery stores as a catastrophic trigger for alcoholism don't seem particularly concerned about increasing access to highly addictive drugs like opiates.
The safe supply advocates have somehow also talked themselves into thinking this is a necessary and vital intervention, and anybody opposed is heartless, cruel, and ignorant. For most people, though, the alternative to this approach isn't non-intervention or neglect. They want a *much greater* level of intervention where drug addicts are pushed into treatment and rehabilitation, or at least taken off the streets and cared for in appropriate residential facilities. That's the sort of approach taken in places like the Netherlands and Portugal, but the activists here only glom onto the "decriminalization" element of it. It's basically a Cargo Cult approach to dealing with drug addiction, like those Pacific islanders who'd build fake airfields trying to lure planes full of cargo to their islands after the end of WW2.
That is truly great work and also a great shame on government “leaders” trying to sweep the devastating effects of their failed policies on “safer supply” under the rug. It seems their interest lies not in the welfare of addicts but rather in more virtue signalling at their expanse.
Enlightening article! So frustrating that the people in charge are not open to criticism and do not consider it in good faith. What is up with provincial and federal govts that they don’t want the truth known…do they not yet know that the truth is welcomed by most Canadians.
Excellent piece. Yes the high school students know what’s going on for sure.
Diversion benefits the addicts who can stay medicated and make some extra coin and perhaps organized crime who pick up new business from the new addicts created by diversion.
Anyone who has had major surgery will be aware of how quickly these opioids become an addiction. The fact that government supplied hydro morphine is being diverted to the black market is far too high a price.
Addicts are people in trouble - they’re not stupid. Very resourceful.
The naive ideologues who believe they’re defending addicts from stigma are mistaken. But their amplification in social media behind the veil of anonymity makes speaking out more difficult for experts trying to live a normal happy life without the nightmare of threats and intimidation.
My humble advice to those fearing government retribution is to toughen up. The benefit of your clinical experience, years of study and expertise are needed in this country. ( I’m thinking now of Dr. Henry Morgenthaler and the personal sacrifice he made for abortion access in Canada. )
The fact that people were intimidated is a huge cause for concern.
This is a new program that has had unintended consequences. It is our responsibility to speak out as the nurses in BC have started to do on the legalization of public drug use, particularly in a hospital setting.
Great reporting. Don’t ever stop.
Another sad commentary on the ideological biases of many of those in public office. Welll written and very informative. It’s the type of reporting we, the reading public, need far more of to keep us informed.
so many echoes of the youth trans/gender ideology movement: a lack of sound scientific data to support the treatment, knowledgeable experts afraid to speak out, activists quick to vilify dissenters, a very slow turning of the ship after a few brave souls come forward.
So the Government is treating critics of "safe supply" in the same manner they treated critics of the Covid response - gaslighting, discrediting, threats, and lies. Those who still believe that "anti-vaxxers" were full of disinformation should take note. I can hardly believe it, but now could it be possible that the BC NDP might actually lose the next election? One can hope.
Zivo is a solid, solid, journalist.