Opinion
February 8 City Council may be allowing more parkland to be developed.

During an in-camera session at city hall, which excludes others, city council dealt with the park land at the end of Stanley Crescent. In camera means top secret but I was told that when “the” developer presents his plans the residents of Sunnybrook will be given an opportunity to offer input.
The houses around this area were built in the 60s and 20 years ago, the city assured me that the land was designated for the park system. A few months ago during the Molly Banister debate several people including councillors assured me there would be no development or that Spruce Drive would be extended south of 32 St.
What happened to protecting the wildlife corridor, or maintaining beautiful trail systems. The trail will most likely just run along the fences of housing south of 32 Street.
We have been lucky. For decades I have been able to look at trees from my livingroom, watch the deer and moose, the occasional skunk, porcupine and coyote but that will be coming to an end. I will miss it but I always expected that the city will need the money and destroy the parkland these animals call home.
This is not like the proposed bridge on the Molly Banister extension, this is not a fenced in cow pasture this is actually home to many animals. Will the environmentalists get ready to rumble? Don’t bother. There are a few city councillors fighting for the environment, give them a chance.
This area back onto 32 Street in the north end and I cannot see million dollar homes being built backing on to 32 St. The city requires a density of 17 housing units per hectare so I suspect they will build 12 suite apartments on the north side and million dollar homes along the creek.
Stanley Crescent has 6 houses on it now with about a dozen vehicles and the deer often sit in the yards watching the scenery, that will change as even 1 apartment building would triple the traffic.
All said in done, I cannot complain, I will miss the serenity of my front yard and the view but I count my blessings for all the years I had it.
A lot of trees will come down and the animals will move on, and I suspect we will move on too, because we were spoiled for so many years.
The city needs the money, because with stagnant growth we definitely do not need more houses.
It is what it is. Thank you.
2025 Federal Election
Canadian Banks Tied to Chinese Fentanyl Laundering Risk U.S. Treasury Sanctions After Cartel Terror Designation

Sam Cooper
TD and other banks face new scrutiny under U.S. anti-terror laws as Chinese-linked superlabs in Canada churn out fentanyl, meth, and ecstasy for U.S. streets, expert tied to Trump administration warns
In an explosive, sweeping interview, former senior State Department investigator David Asherāclosely connected to the Trump administrationās financial and national security apparatusāwarned that Canadian banks could soon face a ānew universeā of regulatory scrutiny, including from the U.S. Treasury, due to the recent designation of Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.
Asher, who contends that the ācommandā for Western Hemisphere money laundering of synthetic narcoticsāincluding fentanyl, methamphetamine, and ecstasy sourced from Chinese precursorsāis ālargely run by Chinese triads in Canada,ā also argues that this interconnected transnational network presents profound risks to Canadian financial institutions.
Speaking bluntly about theĀ nexusĀ between Chinese Triads and Mexican cartels operating in Canada, Asher said: āOf course, theyāre in bed with each other. This is why Tse Chi Lop lived in Torontoā¦ These cartels are now designated as terrorist organizations. That changes everythingāhow we prosecute them, and what tools we can use.ā
Asher, along with Canadian law enforcement experts such as former RCMP intelligence analystĀ Scott McGregor,Ā believes a rarely discussed Canadian legal barrierāStinchcombeāmust be overcome. They argue Canada could unlock powerful new authorities if it begins treating cartel-connected Chinese money laundering networks as accessories to terrorism.
The rule, derived from the 1991 Supreme Court caseĀ R. v. Stinchcombe, requires Canadian law enforcement to disclose nearly all investigative material to the defense. While intended to ensure a fair trial, critics say it severely hampers complex RCMP investigations, especially those relying on wiretaps or sensitive intelligence, and risks blowing the cover of international partners and covert operations.
Asher didnāt mince words: āEvery case I worked in Canadaā¦ the Stinchcombe thing ended up [inhibiting investigations]āwe were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. Then they just changed numbers and changed their OPSEC. Itās a farce.ā
He sees the recent terrorism designation of Mexican cartels as a legal pivot point: āThat whole Stinchcombe thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities.ā
Asher believes that if Canadian law enforcement engages more directly with U.S. authorities, the financiers and money launderers tied to Chinese triads in Canada can be directly linked to fentanyl-trafficking Mexican cartels. If Canadian banks are shown to be facilitating these funds, even passively, they may be subject to U.S. regulationsāincluding terrorism finance sanctions.
The implications for Canadian institutions are profound. āIf any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then theyāre engaged in terrorism financing.ā
Asher also pointed to marijuana trafficking from Canada into the United Statesānot as a separate criminal enterprise, but as part of the same transnational fentanyl networks. He said Chinese Triads, with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, sit atop this narcotics pyramid and are exploiting Canadaās legal marijuana system.
āThe illegal potāmarijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United StatesĀ is huge.Ā And now weāre seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.ā
The flow of narcotics south and criminal proceeds north continues largely unabated, Asher warned, with superlabs in British Columbia and other areas of Canada producing meth, ecstasy, and fentanyl.
On Canadaās enforcement efforts and the outcomes of official inquiries into Chinese criminal and influence networks, Asher was scathing: āWhat have you done to follow up on [the Cullen Commission]? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What have you done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing.ā
He called on Canada to show resolve on investigations that impact the United States: āFrankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged? And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether theyāve been publicly named or not?ā
His core message is that Canada must shake off legal andĀ political inertia:Ā āWhy wouldnāt Canada want to protect itself? Youāre losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks.ā
The consequences of inaction, Asher warned, could be direānot only for Canadian sovereignty and public health, but for its banking sectorās international standing. āCanadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking across the United Statesā¦ Thatās just the bottom line.ā
The following transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. Some passages have been removed to streamline the discussion while preserving its core insights.
Sam Cooper:Ā What is the key change that designating the Sinaloa cartel and these other Mexican cartels as terrorist networksābecause Canada followed President Trump on that. So now this anti-terrorism law should be applicable in Canada. One, does that change the calculus of the U.S. working with the Canadian government in going after cartels in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal? And two, in your view, are these cartels operative with Chinese command-and-control financiers that underwrite their operations across North America?
David Asher:Ā First of all, of course, theyāre in bed with each other. I mean, this is the reason why Tse Chi Lop lived in Canada and in Toronto. I mean, the Sinaloa cartel has significant operations with partners and proxies in Canada, both for distribution and, increasingly, we believe with productionāthe rise of these super labs.
And so, the way I define it: we can do law enforcement top down. We use their intelligence, use their sources. We know who the leadership are, we know where the money is. Rather than build a case from the bottom up and start with dime bags on the streets of Chicago or Vancouver, we say we know these cartels are designated, and now these cartels are terrorist organizations. That changes everything in terms of how we could prosecute them and what type of tools we can use. Because that wholeĀ StinchcombeĀ thing should be thrown out the door because we can now use counter-terrorism authorities. Because Canada does have a reasonably strong counter-terrorism law.
So if we treat these cartels as terroristsāwhich they areāand youāve designated them, we can use our signals intelligence and all sorts of other tools to much more robustly target them without them knowing it. Because every case I worked in Canada, theĀ StinchcombeĀ thing ended upāwe were targeting phone numbers tied to Canadian money launderers who were Chinese, and also actually some Italian mob guys too, and Iranian mob guys. And they got told after 90 days that we were going after them. And then they just changed numbers and they changed their OPSEC. Itās a farce, you know that. But I mean, just like with the terrorism designations, I think weāre in a new universe here.
So now that the Latin cartels have been designated as terrorists, your Anti-Terrorism Act of 2017 willāit has these four key provisions: prevent terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadians from terrorist acts; activate tools to identify, prosecute, and convict terrorists; keep the border secure and contribute to economic security; and work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address root causes of violence.
All these aspects are fundamentally game changers. I mean, if you apply that, I think that you treat these cartels as terrorists, you start to prosecute them. We could do it jointly. And their partners tooāI mean, theyāre accessories to terrorism. So if the Chinese are laundering the money, and if TD Bank, letās say, is accepting the money? Then TD Bank is involved in terrorism finance. Suddenly, then, the whole tapestry of authorities has changed, and we should not have to follow theĀ StinchcombeĀ thing anymore. It should be that we have a direct way to secretly target the communications and follow the money through the cartels, now that theyāre basically the same as Hezbollah and the Quds Force and Al-Qaeda.
And then thereās Chinese partners. Frankly, if theyāre working with them in a partnership, you should be able to approach them as accessories to terrorism from a legal standpoint. That would change your prosecution. It would change your intelligence collection capability, and it would actually conform with the facts, frankly.
And I think also anybody whoās getting the Chinese guys youāve profiled, like Paul King Jin and all these Chinese United Front actors in VancouverāI mean, they are now effectively accessories to a terrorist organizationās finances.
So I have to assumeĀ that your politiciansĀ are not going to meet with accessories to terrorist organizations anymore. I hope what this is doing in the U.S. is that all U.S. banks now are under warning that the Anti-Terrorism Act will be applied to them if they take one dollar of Sinaloa money.
I think that people are starting to realize that. And I think thereās muchāI think itās hardly that TD was the only Canadian bank that was involved in laundering money.
Sam Cooper:Ā Can you expand on that?
David Asher:Ā Youāve got other banks, like BMO. Iām not saying itās laundering money, but Iām not saying it isnāt. I donāt know, but they have huge operations in Mexico, so obviously they should be looked at. But if any of these financial institutions are picking up a dollar for the cartels at this stage and we can prove it, then theyāre engaged in terrorism financing. I mean, the U.S. government will go after banks anywhere in the world that are engaged in terrorism financing, Canadian or otherwise.
And I donāt think the U.S. government is satisfied at all with the Canadian response at this stage. But there is great hope because if you start to crack down using your Anti-Terrorism Act, I think that we have an opportunity to change the framework for collective action and have a much better relationship.
But itās going to mean taking on the Chinese because the money laundering for terrorist dollars is material support for terrorism, and itās going to require going after the distribution of not just fentanyl, but letās not forget thereās massive amounts of methamphetamine produced in Canada. And by the way, no oneās talking about all the meth from Canada thatās entering the United States. President Trump isnāt just concerned about fentanyl. I mean, for years weāve had methamphetamine coming out of Canada into the United States.
Sam Cooper:Ā Well, I recently did a story on aĀ major Sinaloa Cartel cellĀ set up on the British Columbia border near the Peace Arch crossing. They were dealing with [Sinaloa Cartel boss] El Mayo directly, which says a lot, right?
And they were raidedāmind you no one is even incarceratedābut they face civil forfeiture. And they found Mexican passports, fentanyl, MDMA, methamphetamine, ketamine, fake Xanax, incredible weapons caches. And youĀ alsoĀ just had another major smuggling operation of MDMA from B.C. justĀ prosecutedĀ in Washington state. So the U.S. government is concerned with all these precursors from China and that includes ecstasy as well, right?
David Asher:Ā Yes. And of course, the illegal potāmarijuana from Canada that comes into the New York State tri-state area and into the Pacific Northwest states of the United States is huge. And now weāre seeing the integration of fentanyl into marijuana in some cases.
I think that the Canadian defense that statistics show Canada is innocent in fentanyl trafficking across North America is just bullshit. I mean, something like probably 80% of the money laundering networks in the U.S. that are Chinese are in direct contact with numbers in Canada every day. And we donāt know who those subscribers are. Weāre not allowed to spy on Canada.
Sam Cooper:Ā Alright. Can I ask you this? I heard from a senior U.S. narcotics expert with deep knowledge that the pot being run down from Ontario into New York and the tri-state area was coming inĀ tonsĀ ā and that they believed this was command-and-control Chinese organized crime in Toronto. They said the fundsĀ connected to allĀ of that was collected in the U.S. and ultimately coming back up to Toronto banks.
Like you said, the money comes back to be laundered where command is. So that’s the legalāor really, illegalāpot trade from Canada, mixed with the fentanyl trafficking networks directed from Canada. The drugs go south, the cash is collected, and itās laundered back up through Canadian banks.
Thatās your TD Bank case, right?
David Asher:Ā Itās all part of the same drug trafficking organizations.
But look, we donāt have super labs in the United States, and this idea that, well, we have super labs in Canada, but theyāre not targeting the United Statesāhow the hell do you know that? I mean, you just stumbled upon this super lab out in British Columbia. How many others? Weāve heard from dozens of sources that there are a number of labs like that in Canada. I mean, thereās no way theyāre not going to be involved in exporting to the United States.
But even if they arenāt, itās a huge threat to Canada. And we have to assume that itās an incoming threat to the United States. But putting aside fentanyl super labs, youāve got super methamphetamine labs too, and youāve got the marijuana business, ecstasy businessāitās all drug business. Theyāre all interlinked. And letās not forget that Tse Chi Lop served, I donāt know about nine years in prison in the United States. We arrested him well before he was identified publicly, and when he was based in Canada.
You showed in your bookĀ Wilful BlindnessĀ that Paul King Jin, all these guys come down to Las Vegas to launder money. Remember, you can take these chips from these casinos and you can exchange them internationally. Theyāre like bearer bonds practically. You can take them and settle them elsewhere. The chips are fungible. So the idea that these major Chinese networks in Canada are not cross-border into the U.S. is also bullshit.
Sam Cooper:Ā Absolutely, yes.
David Asher:Ā Thatās not some secret. Everybody knows that who works organized crime cases. So whatās going on in British Columbia, which your Cullen CommissionĀ reporting detailedĀ in mind-altering detail. What has Canada done to follow up on that? Nothing. And then you had this Hogue inquiry about Chinese influence in politics. What has Canada done about that? It looks to me like practically nothing. I think thereās a lot we can do though. And there are people in the Canadian government that want to work this positively, and I think there should be more receptivity to it in the United States.
But I think weād like to see the Canadians put some meat on the plate. Can they help us target the Sinaloa cartelās operations in partnership with Chinese triads, not just in Canada, but in the U.S. too, and maybe even in Mexico?
I mean, have they come forward with a plan of attack together? I donāt think so. And if they did, it would be helpful. But frankly, one of the first things you still need to do is: why is TD Bank Canada not being charged?
And do we have charges against some of the executives, whether theyāve been publicly named or not? Itās in the document that the Department of Justice released that there were a number of people theyāve identified for criminal prosecution. I mean, in the U.S. weāre fining TD $3.1 billion. Whatās Canada done? Like aĀ $9 million fineĀ against TD Corporate in Toronto. Seriously? The people in Toronto were running the money laundering network in the United States of America.
Sam Cooper:Ā What more can you say about that piece?
David Asher:Ā There are other people you should talk to about that. But we know there was command and control for the money laundering in Toronto. Thatās why the CEO of TD Canada resigned. He took the blame, but he hasnāt been charged. I expect that that case has not ended yet. I think thereās a high probability that it will be continuing. I donāt know this for certaināIām not involvedābut from what I can see, the facts are pretty clear in the document that was put out by the Department of Justice. I donāt think that thereās grounds for this investigation into TDās money laundering activity at the headquarters level to stop.
But why isnāt the Canadian government looking into them? This is the largest money laundering bank in the history of the United States of America. Itās Canadian. Have you ever thought that you guys might be able to charge them for money laundering too? What about anything theyāre doing today?
At this point, I know theyāve hired people as consultants to try to supposedly clean up the bank, but you know what? Theyāve got a long way to go. They have to close accounts. Theyāve got to screen every relationship theyāve got. And even then, if the Department of the Treasury is satisfied, the Department of Justice might have a different view of it.
But I think that we know this: at the end of the day, the Canadian money laundering command and control remains a huge issue for drug trafficking of all sorts across the United States of America. And so I think thatās just the bottom line.
Sam Cooper:Ā Okay. Letās talk more aboutĀ StinchcombeĀ and Canadaās courts and cross-border crime, because this is a major cause of friction fundamentally for Canada and the U.S. as allies I believe.
Can you explain more about the extreme impediments that Canadian police work under, so that U.S. international enforcement is totally frustrated, loss of confidence, canāt work with Canada. Could you briefly describe to the readers whatĀ StinchcombeĀ means in terms of your and the U.S. governmentās frustration in not being able to go up on [establish wiretaps] on Iranian, Chinese, and Mexican operatives in Canada?
David Asher:Ā Well, we could go up on them, but then they had to be told we were going up on them. I mean, thereās this disclosure rule. Iām not an expert on Canadian law, but I can tell you that we had multiple casesāincluding [Asher names an alleged Iran-regime connected criminal in Toronto that allegedly laundered several billion dollars in major Canadian banks] against the Iran network.
We actually did have a case into Tse Chi Lop as well that was significant with the Australians, but it was DEA-led. And weāve had so many others, including against the Hells Angels of Canada, who were a big problem. I mean, those guys, theyāve been trafficking into the United States. And as far as I can understand it, every time we want to target someone, they end up getting told that theyāre being targeted. I mean, you canāt build an undercover criminal investigation if the cover gets blown after 90 days because of some Canadian law or rule.
And the fact is, but now with this terrorism designation, at least when it comes to the cartels and their facilitating partiesāand that could be the Hells Angels, that could be the Wolf Pack, that could be the Chinese triadsāit doesnāt really matter. Theyāre facilitating terrorism.
And Canada would need to start to make cases on your own to identify, prosecute, and disable and dismantle these networks. Your government knows where these networks exist. It just acts like itās powerless to do anything. Itās just not true. Iāve always felt that there was a compromiseābecause we were dealing with, in some of these Iran cases, we were dealing with terrorism. We had direct Hezbollah and Iranian IRGC connections in Canada. So it baffled us why the criminals were being told that they were being targeted or how they found out.
Whether it was throughĀ StinchcombeĀ or leaks or whatever. But all I can say is: whenās the last time we did a major case together between U.S. and Canada to take down a network? Seriously? Can you name one?
Sam Cooper:Ā I canāt. No.
David Asher:Ā Exactly. So thereās none, basically, thatās of any note. And itās not just to blame Canada. Iām saying letās just turn this into an opportunity for justice, because at the end of the day, your people are getting murdered by these cartels. And the cartels are making money because they can launder through these Chinese networks. And if they canāt make money, theyāll go out of business. So our job is not to protect Canada, but weāre certainly happy to help.
But I think that this needs to beāand itās unfortunate that things have started off in an adversarial way between Washington and Ottawa. But I think that thereās just a lot of frustration. And I know it exists at the Treasury Department, not just the Department of Justice.
Youāve got a ways to go, and I think that your new Prime Minister will hopefully be able to navigate this, and weāll see a new way of working these things together.
And I think, again, this terrorism designation is huge, but someone has to start by saying, okay, now weāve got a terrorism designation. What do we do with it? And right now, I donāt think you should wait for the U.S. to come and complain or appeal to you to do it. You should do this yourselves. Why wouldnāt Canada want to protect itself? Youāre losing thousands of people every year, sometimes tens of thousands, due to overdoses and poisonings and basically murder in the form of these narcotics networks. And then, basically, youāve created a countrywide environment thatās permissive to criminal organizations, and people are suffering. The fact is, this enormous amount of real estate thatās been bought across Canada, especially in British Columbia and the Toronto area, has been bought with money thatās been laundered. It makes Miami in the 1980s look minor league.
Sam Cooper:Ā Yeah. The estimates I’m getting now are over a trillion dollars in Toronto and Vancouver, connected to mortgage fraud and underground banking since 2010.
David Asher:Ā Yeah, itās massive. And it has to be fixed. I mean, seriously, this is an opportunity.
Sam Cooper:Ā Itās an opportunity to improve both our nations.
David Asher:Ā Correct. And I think if Canada came forward and said, we just identified the following networks and individuals who are laundering money for Chinese money laundering organizations, and weāre going to take them down, the U.S. would probably be impressed. Right now, youāre showing videos of dogs on the border and helicoptersāthat doesnāt do anything. Make some arrests, take down some criminals.
Addictions
Thereās No Such Thing as a āSafer Supplyā of Drugs

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 inĀ 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, Denverās city councilĀ passed a proclamationĀ endorsing radical āharm reductionā strategies to address the drug crisis. Among these was āsafer supply,ā 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 andĀ often adulteratedĀ 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 andĀ potentially disfiguring.
Because of this, harm-reduction activists sometimes argue that governments should provide a free supply of unadulterated, āsafeā drugs to get users to abandon the dangerous street supply. Or they say that such drugs should beĀ sold in a controlled manner, like alcohol or cannabisāan endorsement of partial or total drug legalization.
But āsafeā is a relative term: the drugs championed by these activists includeĀ pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl, hydromorphone (an opioid as potent as heroin), andĀ 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, onlyĀ Sweden and the U.K.Ā 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 āsatellite patientsā (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.Ā Media coverageĀ 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 theĀ 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 āpill millsā handed out prescriptionsĀ like candy, flooding communities with OxyContin and similar narcotics. The result was a devastating opioid epidemicāone that rages to this day, at a cumulative cost ofĀ hundreds of thousands of American lives. Canada was similarly affected.
The OxyContin crisis explains why many experienced addiction expertsĀ were aghastĀ 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 beingĀ made all over again, and that the recently vanquished pill mills had returned under the cloak of āharm reduction.ā
Subscribe for free to get BTNās latest news and analysis ā 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 dayādespite the fact that just two or three are enough to cause an overdose in someone without opioid tolerance. Some prescribers also provide supplementaryĀ fentanyl, oxycodone, or stimulants.
Unfortunately, manyĀ safer-supply patients sell or tradeĀ a significant portion of these drugsāprimarily hydromorphoneāin order to purchase more potent illicit substances, such as street fentanyl.
The problems with safer supplyĀ entered Canadaās consciousnessĀ in mid-2023, through anĀ investigative reportĀ I wrote for theĀ 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 interviewedĀ former drug users, who estimated that roughly 80 percent of the safer-supply drugs flowing through their social circles was getting diverted. I documentedĀ dozens of examplesĀ of safer-supply trafficking online, representing tens of thousands of pills. I spoke with youth who hadĀ developed addictionsĀ from diverted safer supply and adults who hadĀ purchased thousands of such pills.
After months of public queries, the police department of London, Ontarioāwhere safer supply was first pilotedārevealed last summer that annual hydromorphone seizuresĀ rose over 3,000 percentĀ between 2019 and 2023. The department later held a press conference warning that gangsĀ clearly traffic safer supply. The police departments of two nearby midsize citiesĀ also sawĀ their post-2019 hydromorphone seizures increase more than 1,000 percent.
The Canadian government quietly dropped its support for safer supply last year,Ā cutting fundingĀ 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 aĀ leaked presentation confirmedĀ 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 beĀ consumed under supervision.
Harm-reduction activistsĀ have insistedĀ that no hard evidence exists of widespread diversion of safer-supply drugs, but this is only because they refuse to study the issue. Most āstudiesā supporting safer supply are produced by ideologically driven activist-scholars, who tend toĀ interview a small number of program enrollees. These activists also rejectĀ attempts to track diversionĀ as āstigmatizing.ā
The experiences of Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Canada offer a clear warning: safer supply is a reliably harmful policy. The outcomes speak for themselvesārising 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 othersā mistakesāor chart a more responsible course.
Our content is always free ā
but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,
consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Institute urging Premier Smith to follow Saskatchewan and drop Industrial Carbon Tax
-
Addictions2 days ago
Should fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?
-
Also Interesting1 day ago
The bizarre story of Taro Tsujimoto
-
Alberta2 days ago
Albertans have contributed $53.6 billion to the retirement of Canadians in other provinces
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Chinese Gangs Dominate Canada: Why Will Voters Give Liberals Another Term?
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
-
Energy2 days ago
Energy, climate, and economics ā A smarter path for Canada
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
Soaked, Angry, and Awake: What We Saw at Pierre Poilievreās Surrey Rally