Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Fentanyl Fiasco: The Tragic Missteps of BC’s Drug Policy

Published

10 minute read

From The Opposition News Network

Unmasking the Destructive Cycle of Drug Policy in British Columbia. A Tale of Good Intentions and Dire Consequences

My fellow Canadians, it’s been a challenging time. I had initially planned to bring you the latest spectacle from the House of Commons, featuring Kristian Firth, but fate had other plans. A personal emergency struck closer to home—a fentanyl overdose in the family. This tragic event threw us headlong into the chaotic circus that is the British Columbia health system. Let me be frank: the system is a mockery. The privacy laws that supposedly protect us also shroud our crises in unnecessary mystery. When my uncle was found unconscious and rushed to the ICU, the walls of confidentiality meant we could not even ascertain his condition over the phone. They notify you of the disaster but cloak its nature in secrecy. It’s an absurdity that only adds to the anguish of families grappling with the realities of addiction.

Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: our approach to drug addiction. The authorities label it a disease, yet paradoxically offer the afflicted the choice between seeking help and remaining in their dire state. This half-hearted stance on drug addiction only perpetuates a cycle of relapse and despair. As we speak, thousands tumble through the revolving doors of our medical facilities—5,975 apparent opioid toxicity deaths this year alone, an 8% increase from 2022. Daily, we see 22 deaths and 17 hospitalizations, and yet our response remains as ineffective as ever. This issue transcends our national borders. The U.S. has openly criticized China for its role in the opioid crisis, accusing it of flooding North America with fentanyl—a drug so potent, it’s decimating communities at an unprecedented rate. Just last year, over 70,000 Americans succumbed to fentanyl overdoses. And what’s more damning? Reports from U.S. congressional committees suggest that the Chinese government might be subsidizing firms that traffic these lethal substances. Lets be clear this is a state-sponsored assault on our populace.

In response to this crisis BC NDP policymakers have championed the notion of “safe supply” programs. These initiatives distribute free hydromorphone, a potent opioid akin to heroin, with the intention of steering users away from the perils of contaminated street drugs. At first glance, this approach might seem logical, even humane. However, the grim realities paint a far different picture, one where good intentions pave the road to societal decay. Addiction specialists are sounding the alarm, and the news isn’t good. While hydromorphone is potent, it lacks the intensity to satisfy fentanyl users, leading to an unintended consequence: diversion. Users, unappeased by the drug’s effects, are selling their “safe” supply on the black market. This results in a glut of hydromorphone flooding the streets, crashing its price by up to 95% in certain areas. This collapse in street value might seem like a win for economic textbooks, but in the harsh world of drug abuse, it’s a catalyst for disaster. Cheap, readily available opioids are finding their way into the hands of an ever-younger audience, ensnaring teenagers in the grips of addiction. Far from reducing harm, these programs are inadvertently setting the stage for a new wave of drug dependency among our most vulnerable.

Programs designed to save lives are instead spinning a web of addiction that ensnares not just existing drug users but also initiates unsuspecting adolescents into a life of dependency. What’s needed isn’t more drugs, even under the guise of medical oversight, but a robust support system that addresses the root causes of addiction yet, the stark reality on the streets tells a story of systemic failure. Let’s dissect the current approach to handling addiction, a condition deeply intertwined with our societal, legal, and health systems.

Take a typical scenario—an individual battling the throes of addiction. Many of them find themselves ensnared by the law, often for crimes like theft, driven by the desperate need to sustain their habit. Yes, many addicts find themselves behind bars, where, paradoxically, they claim to clean up. Jail, devoid of freedom, ironically becomes a place of forced sobriety.

Now, consider the next step in this cycle: release. Upon their release, these individuals, now momentarily clean, are promised treatment—real help, real change. Yet, here’s the catch: this promised help is dangled like a carrot on a stick, often 30 or more days away. What happens in those 30 days? Left to their own devices, many relapse, falling back into old patterns before they ever step foot in a treatment facility.

This brings us to a critical question: why release an individual who has begun to detox in a controlled environment, only to thrust them back into the very conditions that fueled their addiction? Why not maintain custody until a treatment spot opens up? From a fiscal perspective, this dance of incarceration, release, and delayed treatment is an exercise in futility, burning through public funds without solving the core issue. Moreover, from a standpoint of basic human decency and dignity, this system is profoundly flawed. We play roulette with lives on the line, hoping against odds for a favorable outcome when we already hold a losing hand. This isn’t just ineffective; it’s cruel.

Final Thoughts

As we close the curtain on this discussion, let’s not mince words. The BC system’s approach to drug addiction treatment isn’t just flawed; it’s a catastrophic failure masquerading as mercy. Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre has hit the nail squarely on the head in his piece for the National Post. He articulates a vision where compassion and practicality intersect, not through the failed policies of perpetual maintenance, but through genuine, recovery-oriented solutions. His stance is clear: treat addiction as the profound health crisis it is, not as a criminal issue to be swept under the rug of incarceration.

Contrast this with the so-called ‘safe supply’ madness—a Band-Aid solution to a hemorrhaging societal wound. In the dystopian theatre of the Downtown Eastside, where welfare checks and drug dens operate with the efficiency of a grotesque assembly line, what we see is not healthcare, but a deathcare system. It’s a cycle of despair that offers a needle in one hand and a shot of naloxone in the other as a safety net. This isn’t treatment; it’s a perverse form of life support that keeps the heart beating but lets the soul wither.

Come next election in BC, if any provincial party is prepared to advocate for a true treatment-first approach, to shift from enabling addiction to empowering recovery, they will have my—and should have your—unwavering support. We must champion platforms that prioritize recovery, that respect human dignity, and that restore hope to the heartbroken streets of our communities.

The NDP BC government’s current model perpetuates death and decay under the guise of progressive policy. It’s a cruel joke on the citizens who need help the most. We can no longer afford to stand idly by as lives are lost to a system that confuses sustaining addiction with saving lives. Let’s rally for change, for recovery, for a future where Canadians struggling with addiction are given a real shot at redemption. This isn’t just a political imperative—it’s a moral one. The time for half-measures is over. The time for real action is now.

Become a supporter of The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, click here to upgrade your subscription.

Crime

Reporter Exposed The Left’s $20 Billion Climate Slush Fund

Published on

From from undercover news report from Project Veritas

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Michael Bastasch

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — yes, the agency that’s supposed to make sure the air and water is clean — has been caught red-handed in what, at least on the outside, looks like one of the most brazen and high-dollar left-wing political payouts of the century.

In what Trump EPA described in a letter to the agency inspector general’s office as “an unprecedented arrangement,” Biden-era bureaucrats used private Citibank bank accounts to squirrel away $20 billion in taxpayer funds — that’s right, billion with a “b” — much of which is earmarked for lefty “pass-through” organizations the agency itself determined “lacked basic financial competency.”

This $20 billion was ostensibly meant for “green banks” to finance all sorts of nice-sounding “climate justice” and green energy projects — but instead it steered billions upon billions to groups deeply tied into the Democratic Party machinery.

For instance, the current and former chairmen of one of the pass-throughs, called the Coalition for Green Capital (CGC), are both Democratic Party donors, each cutting sizable checks to Kamala Harris’ ill-fated 2024 run. CGC was on track to get $5 billion from Biden’s EPA.

In another case, a left-wing consortium tied to Stacey Abrams’s voter mobilization group was awarded $2 billion. In its letter to the IG, Trump’s EPA noted the former administration itself determined these groups “lacked basic financial competency,” but earmarked the cash anyway.

So, here we have billions in taxpayer funds being directed to Democratic insiders and donors — paging DOGE! No wonder bureaucrats shoveled this money into a seemingly untouchable Citibank account in the waning days of the Biden administration.

One former Biden EPA official was reportedly caught on tape gleefully comparing it to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic.”

Taken together, this looks like the left-wing political payout of the century. Rarely is rank political patronage so nakedly on display.

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI are currently asking tough questions of career EPA officials about these “gold bars,” but it’s unclear if the Trump EPA will be able to claw back any of the funds.

Accountability — after four years of virtually none of it — would not only be a victory for taxpayers, but also for good journalism.

It’s important to remember we’re only talking about this Biden EPA scandal because of the tireless efforts of one journalist. Long before the EPA inspector general, DOJ, the FBI, or even the Department of Government Efficiency, were alerted to this political payout, a reporter named Nick Pope was on the case.

Back in November 2023, when the Biden EPA announced it was handing out billions to so-called “green banks” in the name of “climate justice” and other high causes, Pope thought this might be the perfect cover for the Democratic Party to enrich itself at taxpayer expense.

No slouch, Pope dug in, and soon he saw smoke. Huge, billowing clouds of smoke. His first piece, published that same month, laid out in detail how the “green banks” on the shortlist for Biden EPA funding “all feature numerous individuals on their boards who work for influential organizations aligned with the Democratic Party or previously worked for Democratic administrations.”

But this was no one-off. Pope followed up when the EPA announced it was handing billions to the very groups he had just exposed as essentially being Democratic Party pass-throughs.

Government watchdog groups were put on alert. Congress eventually got involved, demanding answers from the Biden EPA about how something like this could even happen. Pope’s colleague Adam Pack left his own mark, first reporting about the billions going to the liberal consortium affiliated with Abrams’ get-out-the-vote efforts.

Even after the FBI got involved, Pope didn’t rest, pushing out yet another hard-hitting investigation exposing how heads of the groups slated to get billions in Biden bucks “collectively made hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal political donations to Democratic candidates and organizations in recent years.”

If Trump is actually able to claw back these “gold bars,” make sure to thank Nick Pope. Heck, even if we don’t get the money back, thank him anyway. Good journalism should be rewarded even if the ultimate outcome isn’t exactly what we wanted.

Besides, they don’t give out Pulitzers for exposing Democratic corruption, now do they?

While trust in media plummets, and the legacy press continues its liberal bootlicking, it’s even more important we support good journalists, like Pope and the rest of the Daily Caller News Foundation team, who are unafraid to report the truth and hold the powerful accountable.

Mike Bastasch is editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

International

Commerce Secretary on Oval Office debacle: Zelensky flies to Washington to sign deal then scuttles it

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave a brutally honest take on the clash between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office this past Friday, calling him a ‘troublemaker,’ not a ‘peacemaker.’

We’ve watched a lot of different takes on the explosive Friday oval office meeting between Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump, however this explanation from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is exceptional.

Secretary Lutnick explains what the administration team anticipated from Zelensky versus what took place. Knowing the context of the congressional team that met with Zelensky prior to the Oval Office meeting, the explanation from Lutnick takes on even more sunlight. This is a very brutally honest take from a great member of the Trump administration. Watch:

 

 

 

 

President Trump’s repeated position that Zelensky is refusing to discuss peace because the U.S. is standing close with him, is exactly the reason President Trump is now going to create distance.

CUT HIM OFF – President Trump is going to force Ukraine to stand without U.S. support, only supported by the EU and U.K. It’s essentially a peacekeeping standoff. President Trump wants peace, the Ukrainian people want peace, Zelensky and the EU/U.K. are willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

It’s not about sending U.S. military goods into Ukraine, the Trump play can be twofold. (1) We stop paying for their government operations; and (2) potentially we turn off the U.S. satellite targeting systems that Ukraine is using. Then watch what happens.

Continue Reading

Trending

X