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

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
The Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine

By Adam Zivo
Both are shaped by radical LGBTQ activism and questionable evidence.
Over the past decade, North America embraced two disastrous public health movements: pediatric gender medicine and “harm reduction” for drug use. Though seemingly unrelated, these movements are actually ideological siblings. Both were profoundly shaped by extremist LGBTQ activism, and both have produced grievous harms by prioritizing ideology over high-quality scientific evidence.
While harm reductionists are known today for championing interventions that supposedly minimize the negative effects of drug consumption, their movement has always been connected to radical “queer” activism. This alliance began during the 1980s AIDS crisis, when some LGBTQ activists, hoping to reduce HIV infections, partnered with addicts and drug-reform advocates to run underground needle exchanges.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In the early 2000s, after the North American AIDS epidemic was brought under control, many HIV organizations maintained their relevance (and funding) by pivoting to addiction issues. Despite having no background in addiction medicine, their experience with drug users in the context of infectious diseases helped them position themselves as domain experts.
These organizations tended to conceptualize addiction as an incurable infection—akin to AIDS or Hepatitis C—and as a permanent disability. They were heavily staffed by progressives who, influenced by radical theory, saw addicts as a persecuted minority group. According to them, drug use itself was not the real problem—only society’s “moralizing” norms.
These factors drove many HIV organizations to lobby aggressively for harm reduction at the expense of recovery-oriented care. Their efforts proved highly successful in Canada, where I am based, as HIV researchers were a driving force behind the implementation of supervised consumption sites and “safer supply” (free, government-supplied recreational drugs for addicts).
From the 2010s onward, the association between harm reductionism and queer radicalism only strengthened, thanks to the popularization of “intersectional” social justice activism that emphasized overlapping forms of societal oppression. Progressive advocates demanded that “marginalized” groups, including drug addicts and the LGBTQ community, show enthusiastic solidarity with one another.
These two activist camps sometimes worked on the same issues. For example, the gay community is struggling with a silent epidemic of “chemsex” (a dangerous combination of drugs and anonymous sex), which harm reductionists and queer theorists collaboratively whitewash as a “life-affirming cultural practice” that fosters “belonging.”
For the most part, though, the alliance has been characterized by shared tones and tactics—and bad epistemology. Both groups deploy politicized, low-quality research produced by ideologically driven activist-researchers. The “evidence-base” for pediatric gender medicine, for example, consists of a large number of methodologically weak studies. These often use small, non-representative samples to justify specious claims about positive outcomes. Similarly, harm reduction researchers regularly conduct semi-structured interviews with small groups of drug users. Ignoring obvious limitations, they treat this testimony as objective evidence that pro-drug policies work or are desirable.
Gender clinicians and harm reductionists are also averse to politically inconvenient data. Gender clinicians have failed to track long-term patient outcomes for medically transitioned children. In some cases, they have shunned detransitioners and excluded them from their research. Harm reductionists have conspicuously ignored the input of former addicts, who generally oppose laissez-faire drug policies, and of non-addict community members who live near harm-reduction sites.
Both fields have inflated the benefits of their interventions while concealing grievous harms. Many vulnerable children, whose gender dysphoria otherwise might have resolved naturally, were chemically castrated and given unnecessary surgeries. In parallel, supervised consumption sites and “safer supply” entrenched addiction, normalized public drug use, flooded communities with opioids, and worsened public disorder—all without saving lives.
In both domains, some experts warned about poor research practices and unmeasured harms but were silenced by activists and ideologically captured institutions. In 2015, one of Canada’s leading sexologists, Kenneth Zucker, was fired from the gender clinic he had led for decades because he opposed automatically affirming young trans-identifying patients. Analogously, dozens of Canadian health-care professionals have told me that they feared publicly criticizing aspects of the harm-reduction movement. They thought doing so could invite activist harassment while jeopardizing their jobs and grants.
By bullying critics into silence, radical activists manufactured false consensus around their projects. The harm reductionists insist, against the evidence, that safer supply saves lives. Their idea of “evidence-based policymaking” amounts to giving addicts whatever they ask for. “The science is settled!” shout the supporters of pediatric gender medicine, though several systematic reviews proved it was not.
Both movements have faced a backlash in recent years. Jurisdictions throughout the world are, thankfully, curtailing irreversible medical procedures for gender-confused youth and shifting toward a psychotherapy-based “wait and see” approach. Drug decriminalization and safer supply are mostly dead in North America and have been increasingly disavowed by once-supportive political leaders.
Harm reductionists and queer activists are trying to salvage their broken experiments, occasionally by drawing explicit parallels between their twin movements. A 2025 paper published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, for example, asserts that “efforts to control, repress, and punish drug use and queer and trans existence are rising as right-wing extremism becomes increasingly mainstream.” As such, there is an urgent need to “cultivate shared solidarity and action . . . whether by attending protests, contacting elected officials, or vocally defending these groups in hostile spaces.”
How should critics respond? They should agree with their opponents that these two radical movements are linked—and emphasize that this is, in fact, a bad thing. Large swathes of the public understand that chemically and surgically altering vulnerable children is harmful, and that addicts shouldn’t be allowed to commandeer public spaces. Helping more people grasp why these phenomena arose concurrently could help consolidate public support for reform and facilitate a return to more restrained policies.
Adam Zivo is director of the Canadian Centre for Responsible Drug Policy.
For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup.
We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
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.
-
Business1 day agoThe painful return of food inflation exposes Canada’s trade failures
-
Business13 hours agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Business1 day agoCBC uses tax dollars to hire more bureaucrats, fewer journalists
-
National1 day agoElection Officials Warn MPs: Canada’s Ballot System Is Being Exploited
-
Business1 day agoPaying for Trudeau’s EV Gamble: Ottawa Bought Jobs That Disappeared
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIs Roundball A Square Game? Sports Betting Takes Another Hit
-
Alberta2 days agoCoutts border officers seize 77 KG of cocaine in commercial truck entering Canada – Street value of $7 Million
-
Alberta23 hours agoPremier Smith sending teachers back to school and setting up classroom complexity task force




