Connect with us

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.

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

2025 Federal Election

Poilievre to invest in recovery, cut off federal funding for opioids and defund drug dens

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Poilievre will Make Recovery a Reality for 50,000 Canadians

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pledged he will bring the hope that our vulnerable Canadians need by expanding drug recovery programs, creating 50,000 new opportunities for Canadians seeking freedom from addiction. At the same time, he will stop federal funding for opioids, defund federal drug dens, and ensure that any remaining sites do not operate within 500 meters of schools, daycares, playgrounds, parks and seniors’ homes, and comply with strict new oversight rules that focus on pathways to treatment.

More than 50,000 people have lost their lives to fentanyl since 2015—more Canadians than died in the Second World War. Poilievre pledged to open a path to recovery while cracking down on the radical Liberal experiment with free access to illegal drugs that has made the crisis worse and brought disorder to local communities.

Specifically, Poilievre will:

  1. Fund treatment for 50,000 Canadians. A new Conservative government will fund treatment for 50,000 Canadians in treatment centres with a proven record of success at getting people off drugs. This includes successful models like the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre, which helps people recover and reunite with their families, communities, and culture. To ensure the best outcomes, funding will follow results. Where spaces in good treatment programs exist, we will use them, and where they need to expand, these funds will allow that.
  2. Ban drug dens from being located within 500 metres of schools, daycares, playgrounds, parks, and seniors’ homes and impose strict new oversight rules. Poilievre also pledged to crack down on the Liberals’ reckless experiments with free access to illegal drugs that allow provinces to operate drug sites with no oversight, while pausing any new federal exemptions until evidence justifies they support recovery. Existing federal sites will be required to operate away from residential communities and places where families and children frequent and will now also have to focus on connecting users with treatment, meet stricter regulatory standards or be shut down. He will also end the exemption for fly-by-night provincially-regulated sites.

“After the Lost Liberal Decade, Canada’s addiction crisis has spiralled out of control,” said Poilievre. “Families have been torn apart while children have to witness open drug use and walk through dangerous encampments to get to school. Canadians deserve better than the endless Liberal cycle of crime, despair, and death.”

Since the Liberals were first elected in 2015, our once-safe communities have become sordid and disordered, while more and more Canadians have been lost to the dangerous drugs the Liberals have flooded into our streets. In British Columbia, where the Liberals decriminalized dangerous drugs like fentanyl and meth, drug overdose deaths increased by 200 percent.

The Liberals also pursued a radical experiment of taxpayer-funded hard drugs, which are often diverted and resold to children and other vulnerable Canadians. The Vancouver Police Department has said that roughly half of all hydromorphone seizures were diverted from this hard drugs program, while the Waterloo Regional Police Service and Niagara Regional Police Service said that hydromorphone seizures had exploded by 1,090% and 1,577%, respectively.

Despite the death and despair that is now common on our streets, bizarrely Mark Carney told a room of Liberal supporters that 50,000 fentanyl deaths in Canada is not “a crisis.” He also hand-picked a Liberal candidate who said the Liberals “would be smart to lean into drug decriminalization” and another who said “legalizing all drugs would be good for Canada.”

Carney’s star candidate Gregor Robertson, an early advocate of decriminalization and so-called safe supply, wanted drug dens imposed on communities without any consultation or public safety considerations. During his disastrous tenure as Vancouver Mayor, overdoses increased by 600%.

Alberta has pioneered an approach that offers real hope by adopting a recovery-focused model of care, leading to a nearly 40 percent reduction in drug-poisoning deaths since 2023—three times the decrease seen in British Columbia. However, we must also end the Liberal drug policies that have worsened the crisis and harmed countless lives and families.

To fund this policy, a Conservative government will stop federal funding for opioids, defund federal drug dens, and sue the opioid manufacturers and consulting companies who created this crisis in the first place.

“Canadians deserve better than the Liberal cycle of crime, despair, and death,” said Poilievre. “We will treat addiction with compassion and accountability—not with more taxpayer-funded poison. We will turn hurt into hope by shutting down drug dens, restoring order in our communities, funding real recovery, and bringing our loved ones home drug-free.”

Continue Reading

Addictions

There’s No Such Thing as a “Safer Supply” of Drugs

Published on

By Adam Zivo

Sweden, the U.K., and Canada all experimented with providing opioids to addicts. The results were disastrous.

[This article was originally published in City Journal, a public policy magazine and website published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. We encourage our readers to subscribe to them for high-quality analysis on urban issues]

Last August, Denver’s city council passed a proclamation endorsing radical “harm reduction” strategies to address the drug crisis. Among these was “safer supply,” the idea that the government should give drug users their drug of choice, for free. Safer supply is a popular idea among drug-reform activists. But other countries have already tested this experiment and seen disastrous results, including more addiction, crime, and overdose deaths. It would be foolish to follow their example.

The safer-supply movement maintains that drug-related overdoses, infections, and deaths are driven by the unpredictability of the black market, where drugs are inconsistently dosed and often adulterated with other toxic substances. With ultra-potent opioids like fentanyl, even minor dosing errors can prove fatal. Drug contaminants, which dealers use to provide a stronger high at a lower cost, can be just as deadly and potentially disfiguring.

Because of this, harm-reduction activists sometimes argue that governments should provide a free supply of unadulterated, “safe” drugs to get users to abandon the dangerous street supply. Or they say that such drugs should be sold in a controlled manner, like alcohol or cannabis—an endorsement of partial or total drug legalization.

But “safe” is a relative term: the drugs championed by these activists include pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl, hydromorphone (an opioid as potent as heroin), and prescription meth. Though less risky than their illicit alternatives, these drugs are still profoundly dangerous.

The theory behind safer supply is not entirely unreasonable, but in every country that has tried it, implementation has led to increased suffering and addiction. In Europe, only Sweden and the U.K. have tested safer supply, both in the 1960s. The Swedish model gave more than 100 addicts nearly unlimited access through their doctors to prescriptions for morphine and amphetamines, with no expectations of supervised consumption. Recipients mostly sold their free drugs on the black market, often through a network of “satellite patients” (addicts who purchased prescribed drugs). This led to an explosion of addiction and public disorder.

Most doctors quickly abandoned the experiment, and it was shut down after just two years and several high-profile overdose deaths, including that of a 17-year-old girl. Media coverage portrayed safer supply as a generational medical scandal and noted that the British, after experiencing similar problems, also abandoned their experiment.

While the U.S. has never formally adopted a safer-supply policy, it experienced something functionally similar during the OxyContin crisis of the 2000s. At the time, access to the powerful opioid was virtually unrestricted in many parts of North America. Addicts turned to pharmacies for an easy fix and often sold or traded their extra pills for a quick buck. Unscrupulous “pill mills” handed out prescriptions like candy, flooding communities with OxyContin and similar narcotics. The result was a devastating opioid epidemic—one that rages to this day, at a cumulative cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. Canada was similarly affected.

The OxyContin crisis explains why many experienced addiction experts were aghast when Canada greatly expanded access to safer supply in 2020, following a four-year pilot project. They worried that the mistakes of the recent past were being made all over again, and that the recently vanquished pill mills had returned under the cloak of “harm reduction.”

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

Most Canadian safer-supply prescribers dispense large quantities of hydromorphone with little to no supervised consumption. Patients can receive up to 40 eight-milligram pills per day—despite the fact that just two or three are enough to cause an overdose in someone without opioid tolerance. Some prescribers also provide supplementary fentanyl, oxycodone, or stimulants.

Unfortunately, many safer-supply patients sell or trade a significant portion of these drugs—primarily hydromorphone—in order to purchase more potent illicit substances, such as street fentanyl.

The problems with safer supply entered Canada’s consciousness in mid-2023, through an investigative report I wrote for the National Post. I interviewed 14 addiction physicians from across the country, who testified that safer-supply diversion is ubiquitous; that the street price of hydromorphone collapsed by up to 95 percent in communities where safer supply is available; that youth are consuming and becoming addicted to diverted safer-supply drugs; and that organized crime traffics these drugs.

Facing pushback, I interviewed former drug users, who estimated that roughly 80 percent of the safer-supply drugs flowing through their social circles was getting diverted. I documented dozens of examples of safer-supply trafficking online, representing tens of thousands of pills. I spoke with youth who had developed addictions from diverted safer supply and adults who had purchased thousands of such pills.

After months of public queries, the police department of London, Ontario—where safer supply was first piloted—revealed last summer that annual hydromorphone seizures rose over 3,000 percent between 2019 and 2023. The department later held a press conference warning that gangs clearly traffic safer supply. The police departments of two nearby midsize cities also saw their post-2019 hydromorphone seizures increase more than 1,000 percent.

The Canadian government quietly dropped its support for safer supply last year, cutting funding for many of its pilot programs. The province of British Columbia (the nexus of the harm-reduction movement) finally pulled back support last month, after a leaked presentation confirmed that safer-supply drugs are getting sold internationally and that the government is investigating 60 pharmacies for paying kickbacks to safer-supply patients. For now, all safer-supply drugs dispensed within the province must be consumed under supervision.

Harm-reduction activists have insisted that no hard evidence exists of widespread diversion of safer-supply drugs, but this is only because they refuse to study the issue. Most “studies” supporting safer supply are produced by ideologically driven activist-scholars, who tend to interview a small number of program enrollees. These activists also reject attempts to track diversion as “stigmatizing.”

The experiences of Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada offer a clear warning: safer supply is a reliably harmful policy. The outcomes speak for themselves—rising addiction, diversion, and little evidence of long-term benefit.

As the debate unfolds in the United States, policymakers would do well to learn from these failures. Americans should not be made to endure the consequences of a policy already discredited abroad simply because progressive leaders choose to ignore the record. The question now is whether we will repeat others’ mistakes—or chart a more responsible course.

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