I am an alcoholic in recovery who for many many years has dedicated part of my time to helping alcoholics and addicts in active addiction find the path to recovery by working with the rehab centre that helped me long ago as well as speaking to groups and sponsoring individual. I agree 100 percent with this article. We need funding to support proper rehabilitiation. The cost of most rehabs is outside most addict's means, few places offer free inpatient Rehabilitation and 30 day programs are too short. Safe Supply is a ridiculous misguided left wing policy (and I am progressive and left leaning). I know addicts who regularly abuse these programs. There is no incentive to recover and break the addiction patterns. It's also ridiculous that its ok to smoke pot or inject opiods in a public park or playground while absolutely illegal to drink a beer. Our policies, much like our governance these days in Canada, are broken. They need a complete overhaul based on focusing on what results can be achieved. Thank you Nick for this.
Thank you, Nick Kadysh! What you have written corresponds well with what Adam Zivo has been writing. It all needs to be said more often and widely published.
Thank-you for this article! I have a strong interest in Canada’s drug policies having lost a son to opioid abuse after a few years of abstinence. I agree that “activist groups” shouldn’t have so much power to influence legislation! The Harm Reduction hypothesis has not proven itself, so why so slow to get rid of it? I’m very, very interested in what MDMA, psilocybin etc have to offer and feel impatient about government dithering over funding studies. Meanwhile I’m seeing all these untested mushroom “therapies” on offer by non-experts because suffering people are willing to pay for miracles.
Once a program like Safe Supply and Harm Reduction has been around for a while, it accumulates a constituency of people who earn their living off it and who will never agree they should all be let go. The poverty industry workers who will need to hire more of themselves to manage the poverty that the enablement of addiction creates, the landlords who rent space for clinics and safe-injunction centres and cannabis shops, the Pharmas and wholesalers that supply the drugs, the managers and co-ordinators with otherwise useless BSW degrees who manage the programs and apply for the government grants to run them, and the bureaucrats who build empires in the civil service: the more addicts, the more underlings they can hire to oversee the spending of all this money. Remember in the civil service you never hire an assistant who might undermine you for your job. You hire two underlings who will undermine each other.
Oh, no. Harm Reduction will be with us forever. It’s the ideal make-work program. The more people it kills, the more staff have to be hired to enlarge it.
I think I get what you’re saying. There’s a saying out there that legislation is easier to enact than to undo, once entrenched. This is why I get so frustrated with passionate special interest groups. They always make it look like they’re on the side of the righteous, and government falls in line because, you know, this what the people want. Wrong.
This is a well-explained article that has better dissuaded myself against safe supply policy than any other article that I have read to date. That being said, one refinement to the message here that I would offer is that policy *counterfactuals* always need to be taken into consideration. It is not necessarily a sound argument to make that because overdose deaths have increased that therefore safe supply has failed - there must be an argument that the increase *would not have been worse* had there been no safe supply (a possibility to which I remain open-minded).
Increasing overdose deaths would not be a bad thing, whether it was because of or in spite of the safer supply policy. The evil of safer supply is that it enables drug addiction by increasing the supply of drugs on the street and getting more people hooked. The advocates for safer supply know this and advocate for it because to them the theoretical benefit, even if illusory, of reducing overdose deaths is the only benefit they care about. They honestly don’t care about the externality of new addictions (and inevitable ruined lives) created by the policy. (“Not my department.”). Why they don’t care would be a topic to investigate but that they are Marxists seeking to destroy society is one attractive hypothesis.
Sounds like you may be knocking down some "Marxist" straw men. Any examples of real-life safe-supply advocates you can point to so to prove your point?
Back in the early 90s I worked at an advocacy and research center around disability rights and community housing. I cant think of anyone who was there for some broad political agenda to overthrow capitalism and wrest control to the proletariat. They were there because they had some direct connection to the purpose of their research and advocacy be that Downs or Autism... And this was the 90s where Autism often meant some profoundly debilitating cognitive condition.... And even though I had never heard the term "negative externalities" at the time, their sometimes hyper singular focus would lead to policy proposals that would have negative consequences outside their immediate narrow field of interest. Their problem was the most important problem and all others were ranked below. It was more psychology then sociology at play.
Stefan I admit I’ve been influenced by journalistic investigations into harm-reduction outcomes coming mostly from BC, AB, and Portland, OR. I also admit I trust these journalists and have not researched their data.
I find it ironic and sad that as a country we now seem incapable of building anything. But the one area where we have had a supply side revolution is in the provision of addictive hard drugs.
Drug policy, especially illegal drug policy will continue to be approached on a political basis because the primary goal of most drug policy is the pursuit of political power with a secondary focus on the health and safety of the public.
Because ideology makes people dumb. It is like the argument that communism has never been tried properly. These people believe totally in the righteousness of their ideas and are unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary.
The reason why Chrétien was a successful PM was because he wasn’t ideologically rooted. If a program didn’t work, they changed. They didn’t call opponents racists etc. it also made them look damn reasonable in political discussions. There was a reason why Reform could not take him out.
Great column! Mr. Kadysh should be appointed Canadian Drug Czar and given the power to clean up this mess. Although so much good sense would be difficult for many politicians to stomach.
I am a huge proponent of prevention being the cure, and while I don’t expect this article to address that, I might have expected at least some suggestion by the author as to what we’ll need to ramp up first when we ultimately clamp down (which I do know we need to do). I have to believe that enforcement and intensive rehabilitation are many times more expensive as down-river solutions than the current “systems” we are employing like safe supply. Even if you look at where opiate addiction often begins, with a legal prescription, one has to consider that the healthier and more effective treatments are also more expensive acutely (e.g., physiotherapy treatments and the like, versus a relatively inexpensive pill). So where do we start? Where does the conservative-leaning audience of this Substack think that money is going to come from?
That would be wonderful, except all governments seem to lack the ability to cut spending once something is already a line item. The author made the case for a sense of urgency, and I just want to make sure any cuts don’t come at the literal expense of prevention.
Good piece - drug policy has always been highly politicized and in this case developed without thinking through all the unintended consequences. The definition of bad policy. The only solution is a multi pronged approach by provincial levels of government similar to the one taken in Alberta and in the UK. Funding for treatment and long term support and follow up is needed to deal with the scourge of opioids. And as an aside the Costco example is misleading - in that case the nicotine is in a form intended to ameliorate withdrawal symptoms.
I am an alcoholic in recovery who for many many years has dedicated part of my time to helping alcoholics and addicts in active addiction find the path to recovery by working with the rehab centre that helped me long ago as well as speaking to groups and sponsoring individual. I agree 100 percent with this article. We need funding to support proper rehabilitiation. The cost of most rehabs is outside most addict's means, few places offer free inpatient Rehabilitation and 30 day programs are too short. Safe Supply is a ridiculous misguided left wing policy (and I am progressive and left leaning). I know addicts who regularly abuse these programs. There is no incentive to recover and break the addiction patterns. It's also ridiculous that its ok to smoke pot or inject opiods in a public park or playground while absolutely illegal to drink a beer. Our policies, much like our governance these days in Canada, are broken. They need a complete overhaul based on focusing on what results can be achieved. Thank you Nick for this.
Thank you for speaking from a place of personal experience. I wish you continued success in your recovery and assisting in the recovery of others.
Thank you, Nick Kadysh! What you have written corresponds well with what Adam Zivo has been writing. It all needs to be said more often and widely published.
Thank-you for this article! I have a strong interest in Canada’s drug policies having lost a son to opioid abuse after a few years of abstinence. I agree that “activist groups” shouldn’t have so much power to influence legislation! The Harm Reduction hypothesis has not proven itself, so why so slow to get rid of it? I’m very, very interested in what MDMA, psilocybin etc have to offer and feel impatient about government dithering over funding studies. Meanwhile I’m seeing all these untested mushroom “therapies” on offer by non-experts because suffering people are willing to pay for miracles.
Once a program like Safe Supply and Harm Reduction has been around for a while, it accumulates a constituency of people who earn their living off it and who will never agree they should all be let go. The poverty industry workers who will need to hire more of themselves to manage the poverty that the enablement of addiction creates, the landlords who rent space for clinics and safe-injunction centres and cannabis shops, the Pharmas and wholesalers that supply the drugs, the managers and co-ordinators with otherwise useless BSW degrees who manage the programs and apply for the government grants to run them, and the bureaucrats who build empires in the civil service: the more addicts, the more underlings they can hire to oversee the spending of all this money. Remember in the civil service you never hire an assistant who might undermine you for your job. You hire two underlings who will undermine each other.
Oh, no. Harm Reduction will be with us forever. It’s the ideal make-work program. The more people it kills, the more staff have to be hired to enlarge it.
I think I get what you’re saying. There’s a saying out there that legislation is easier to enact than to undo, once entrenched. This is why I get so frustrated with passionate special interest groups. They always make it look like they’re on the side of the righteous, and government falls in line because, you know, this what the people want. Wrong.
Pretty doggone sensible, if you ask me.
A nicely written piece of common sense that does not feature emotionalism as its primary theme.
This is a well-explained article that has better dissuaded myself against safe supply policy than any other article that I have read to date. That being said, one refinement to the message here that I would offer is that policy *counterfactuals* always need to be taken into consideration. It is not necessarily a sound argument to make that because overdose deaths have increased that therefore safe supply has failed - there must be an argument that the increase *would not have been worse* had there been no safe supply (a possibility to which I remain open-minded).
Increasing overdose deaths would not be a bad thing, whether it was because of or in spite of the safer supply policy. The evil of safer supply is that it enables drug addiction by increasing the supply of drugs on the street and getting more people hooked. The advocates for safer supply know this and advocate for it because to them the theoretical benefit, even if illusory, of reducing overdose deaths is the only benefit they care about. They honestly don’t care about the externality of new addictions (and inevitable ruined lives) created by the policy. (“Not my department.”). Why they don’t care would be a topic to investigate but that they are Marxists seeking to destroy society is one attractive hypothesis.
Sounds like you may be knocking down some "Marxist" straw men. Any examples of real-life safe-supply advocates you can point to so to prove your point?
People who advocate for damaging policies must have an agenda. Their deeds speak. Or do you just not know what a hypothesis is?
Back in the early 90s I worked at an advocacy and research center around disability rights and community housing. I cant think of anyone who was there for some broad political agenda to overthrow capitalism and wrest control to the proletariat. They were there because they had some direct connection to the purpose of their research and advocacy be that Downs or Autism... And this was the 90s where Autism often meant some profoundly debilitating cognitive condition.... And even though I had never heard the term "negative externalities" at the time, their sometimes hyper singular focus would lead to policy proposals that would have negative consequences outside their immediate narrow field of interest. Their problem was the most important problem and all others were ranked below. It was more psychology then sociology at play.
That’s a good point. Thanks for highlighting your experience.
But that is an unprovable negative. It should be up to the program to prove that it works, not the other way around.
What constitutes "proof"? Proof is nothing more or less than sound evidence of what the counterfactuals would look like.
Stefan I admit I’ve been influenced by journalistic investigations into harm-reduction outcomes coming mostly from BC, AB, and Portland, OR. I also admit I trust these journalists and have not researched their data.
I find it ironic and sad that as a country we now seem incapable of building anything. But the one area where we have had a supply side revolution is in the provision of addictive hard drugs.
That pretty much sums up the past 9 years at all levels of government.
Wow. A very compelling argument. There is no doubt that our current approach to opioids is dangerous and does seem to be increasing addictions.
Wow, refreshing common sense. Thank you for a well written article.
Drug policy, especially illegal drug policy will continue to be approached on a political basis because the primary goal of most drug policy is the pursuit of political power with a secondary focus on the health and safety of the public.
Good article. Why is our public policy so dumb?
Because ideology makes people dumb. It is like the argument that communism has never been tried properly. These people believe totally in the righteousness of their ideas and are unwilling to accept evidence to the contrary.
The reason why Chrétien was a successful PM was because he wasn’t ideologically rooted. If a program didn’t work, they changed. They didn’t call opponents racists etc. it also made them look damn reasonable in political discussions. There was a reason why Reform could not take him out.
Finally some common sense! Thank you for the well written article.
Great column! Mr. Kadysh should be appointed Canadian Drug Czar and given the power to clean up this mess. Although so much good sense would be difficult for many politicians to stomach.
I am a huge proponent of prevention being the cure, and while I don’t expect this article to address that, I might have expected at least some suggestion by the author as to what we’ll need to ramp up first when we ultimately clamp down (which I do know we need to do). I have to believe that enforcement and intensive rehabilitation are many times more expensive as down-river solutions than the current “systems” we are employing like safe supply. Even if you look at where opiate addiction often begins, with a legal prescription, one has to consider that the healthier and more effective treatments are also more expensive acutely (e.g., physiotherapy treatments and the like, versus a relatively inexpensive pill). So where do we start? Where does the conservative-leaning audience of this Substack think that money is going to come from?
How about the money comes from one of the many unnecessary places it’s going at present?
That would be wonderful, except all governments seem to lack the ability to cut spending once something is already a line item. The author made the case for a sense of urgency, and I just want to make sure any cuts don’t come at the literal expense of prevention.
Good piece - drug policy has always been highly politicized and in this case developed without thinking through all the unintended consequences. The definition of bad policy. The only solution is a multi pronged approach by provincial levels of government similar to the one taken in Alberta and in the UK. Funding for treatment and long term support and follow up is needed to deal with the scourge of opioids. And as an aside the Costco example is misleading - in that case the nicotine is in a form intended to ameliorate withdrawal symptoms.