Donate

Category: Harm Reduction

  • IT IS NOT A CRIME TO SAVE A LIFE

    IT IS NOT A CRIME TO SAVE A LIFE

    Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) and Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS) are critical, evidence-based interventions that save lives. In Ontario, an estimated 6 to 7 people die every day due to the toxic, unregulated drug supply.

    Despite this, the provincial government has increasingly restricted access to these essential services through funding cuts and stricter regulations. In response, communities are taking action. Grassroots organizations, volunteers, and harm reduction advocates are stepping in to operate OPS independently and meet urgent local needs.

    This document provides an overview of key legal considerations for individuals and groups involved in supporting or running an OPS in Ontario.

  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province moves to circumvent B.C. Supreme Court, harm reduction nurses slam “recipe for preventable death”

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Province moves to circumvent B.C. Supreme Court, harm reduction nurses slam “recipe for preventable death”

    Victoria, B.C. | April 26, 2024 — The Harm Reduction Nurses Association is profoundly frustrated and disappointed to hear the British Columbia provincial government’s announcement that they have sought permission from the Federal government to recriminalize all people who are at risk of dying from the unregulated drug crisis who lack access to housing or 24/7 safer use spaces in their communities.

    “The B.C. government’s actions today will put people who use drugs and people who rely on public space at further risk of harm and death,” says Corey Ranger of the Harm Reduction Nurses Association. “We all want and deserve communities where all people, whether they use drugs or not, can access safety and well-being. By imposing these restrictions on the decriminalization pilot without offering real solutions like expanding overdose prevention services and access to housing, the province has declared some lives unworthy of saving.” 

    The BC Supreme Court injunction to prevent Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, from coming into force found that the province’s proposed restrictions on decriminalization would lead to irreparable harm. The Harm Reduction Nurses Association has previously reached out to the Province with an offer to collaborate to address concerns without causing further harm, through a range of legal and policy changes that would better protect the lives of people currently at risk of overdose and increase public safety. 

    “Rather than focus on solutions appropriate to the eight-year emergency we are in and thousands of lives lost, the Province has chosen to do an end-run around that court decision,” says DJ Larkin, co-counsel for HRNA and executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. 

    “This pushes people who use drugs out of sight, to covert and isolated use. Combined with a toxic and unpredictable drug supply, that is a recipe for preventable drug poisoning death. We don’t want people to die hidden in alleyways,” says Ranger. “We don’t want any more families to have to grieve their loved ones. We want effective solutions. And we know that criminalization is no solution. This is a step back.” 

    HRNA members say B.C.’s actions directing healthcare workers in hospitals to follow policies that “prohibit drug possession, use and purchasing of illicit drugs,” will further impede nurses’ ability to ethically provide compassionate and life-saving care to people who use drugs. 

    “Principles of equity, autonomy and justice are embedded within nursing regulatory professional practice requirements,” says Michelle Danda of HRNA. “These policy directives will further marginalize and stigmatize people who use drugs and create division between nurses and patients as opposed to a community to support care. We need nurses to unite around compassionate, evidence-informed care.” 

    “To keep everyone safer – including nurses and all healthcare workers – we need widespread access to safer use spaces, including inhalation services,” says Ranger. “We can achieve safety without resorting to punitive measures.”

    HRNA has outlined a number of actions the Province could take that would help, not harm, including: 

    • Rapid scaling-up of supervised consumption sites wherever they are needed 
    • Exploring options to responsibly regulate the drug supply for safety 
    • Scaling up access to regulated, evidence-based voluntary non-profit treatment 
    • Investing heavily in affordable housing and poverty reduction 

    More than a century of prohibition has demonstrated that enforcement has not decreased drug availability or use, is extremely expensive, and is clearly linked to an increased risk of overdose and cycles of homelessness. 

    “The decriminalization pilot has its drawbacks, and ultimately does not address the unregulated toxic drug supply that continues to drive this crisis,” says Larkin. “Even so, it is an important part of a broader shift. To be effective in reducing harm and supporting healthy communities, it must be accompanied by additional actions. Blaming the decriminalization pilot for systemic issues of rising homelessness and visible poverty scapegoats those already suffering. When we see public drug use, it is because people do not have housing, services or safe places to go – and because people want to stay alive, not die alone and out of sight.”

    Today’s announcement is a direct circumvention of the Bill 34 injunction and poses the very same risk for irreparable harm. 

    -30- 

    Links and Resources: 

    • B.C. Supreme Court Ruling on Injunction Application 
    • Bill 34 – Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act
    • April 16, 2024 HRNA Press Release
    • December 30, 2023 HRNA Press Release 

    Media Contact:

    [email protected]

  • Open Letter to Saskatchewan government Re: Health Policy Changes

    Open Letter to Saskatchewan government Re: Health Policy Changes

    January 25, 2024

    To: 

    Hon. Scott Moe Premier of Saskatchewan [email protected] 

    Hon. Everett Hindley Minister of Health [email protected] 

    Hon. Tim McLeod Minister of Mental Health and Addictions [email protected] 

    Re: Recent Saskatchewan Health Policy Changes 

    Premier Moe, Minister Hindley, Minister McLeod; 

    We are writing on behalf of the HIV Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition to express our grave concern at the Saskatchewan government’s recent health policy changes, announced January 18, 2024. 

    The changes, which include restricting access to vital harm reduction supplies and information encouraging safer substance use, will jeopardize efforts to combat the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C, shutter cost-effective and proven health interventions, and contradict decades of established scientific evidence, best practice in public health, and international guidance. Ultimately, they put people in Saskatchewan at risk. 

    Communities across Canada face intersecting challenges of poverty, homelessness, a dangerously unregulated drug supply, and health inequities. To meaningfully address these challenges and improve life for all people, governments must implement compassionate, evidence-based public policy that upholds principles of public health and human rights. 

    For nearly six years, the provision of sterile pipes and information on safer inhalation has been part of efforts to reduce the transmission of hepatitis C and HIV, promote safety for people using drugs in Saskatchewan, and connect people to health and social supports. This abrupt policy change not only undermines these efforts but also puts people at risk of harm, placing an undue burden on communities, Saskatchewan’s health system and those who work within it, and community organizations. 

    The shift to a “one-for-one” needle exchange is not only outdated but counterproductive, likely increasing rates of infection in Saskatchewan and exacerbating the challenges faced by people at risk of overdose. Given the province’s unfortunate distinction as a hot spot for HIV transmission in Canada, and the disproportionate impact this has on Indigenous communities in Saskatchewan, it is crucial to reconsider this policy. 

    The policy appears fiscally reckless, as the cost to manage new cases of HIV and hepatitis C is considerably high. Preventing new infections through sterile supplies and safer use information is a vastly more cost-effective approach. We urge the government to responsibly steward public funds by continuing to invest in health interventions proven to reduce transmission and alleviate the strain on health care systems. 

    The Saskatchewan government’s inability to cite any evidence in support of these policy changes raises serious questions about the decision-making process. A focus on a “recovery-oriented system of care” need not come at the expense of cost-effective, evidence-based strategies with proven benefits to public health. Evidence has consistently demonstrated how harm reduction supplies and information can connect people to health and social supports, including voluntary treatment. Limiting access to safety education and health services does not decrease substance use: it only makes people less safe. 

    The HIV Legal Network and Canadian Drug Policy Coalition urge the Government of Saskatchewan to reconsider these policy changes. To ensure the well-being of all residents, we invite you to engage in a constructive dialogue with people with lived and living experience, front-line and health workers, health and scientific experts and other affected communities. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this issue with you and offer research and policy resources on effective measures to ensure the well-being of all people in Saskatchewan. 

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response. 

    Sincerely, 

    DJ Larkin, Executive Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition 

    Janet Butler-McPhee and Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Directors, HIV Legal Network 

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/ Doalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues

    For Immediate Release: Nationwide Support Rallies as Vancouver Police Target Safe Drug Supply Program

    Vancouver, BC | October 27, 2023 —

    Advocates, community organizations and concerned members of the public across the country are adding their names to an open letter condemning the October 25 arrests of members of the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF). 

    Please see below for our response to the criminalization of the Drug User Liberation Front’s heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine compassion club in Vancouver, and view the live document which will be updated continuously with new signatories.

    Media are invited to contact organizations listed among the signatories directly for comment. 

    Canadian Drug Policy Media Contact: [email protected]

    RE: Vancouver Police Press Release, “VPD executes search warrants in Downtown Eastside drug investigation”

    To:

    Vancouver Police Department

    City of Vancouver, and

    Province of British Columbia: 

    The signatories of this letter condemn the criminalization of community-regulated safe drug supply distribution in Vancouver on October 25, 2023, executed through search warrants, arrests and interrogations by Vancouver Police Department. 

    Unregulated drug toxicity is the leading cause of death in BC for persons aged 10 to 59, accounting for more deaths than homicides, suicides, accidents and natural diseases combined. In this urgent context, the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF) operates a compassion club to save lives and reduce the harms of the unregulated drug market. 

    DULF has been public about its activities since its first safe supply action on April 14, 2021. Its second action in July 2021 was conducted in plain sight of a Vancouver Police Department station with officers in attendance. In 2022, the City of Vancouver issued a business license to DULF. That year, the Province of BC initiated a $200,000 grant through Vancouver Coastal Health to help cover DULF’s overhead costs. 

    DULF was transparent in its application for a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act exemption to the Government of Canada, publishing both its application and the Government’s denial of the exemption for public examination. 

    DULF has conducted formal evaluation of its compassion club in partnership with qualified researchers at the BC Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU). The data show the program is keeping people alive and in better health, with lower reliance on criminal activity. The removal of funding not only hinders DULF’s compassion club, it closes down a critical overdose prevention site – an outcome with legal precedent to be reversed.

    The statement issued by Vancouver Police on October 26, 2023 is an apparent attempt to distance governments and police from the active and passive roles that each have played in DULF’s activities while political backlash builds against safe supply more broadly.

    International reporting on DULF includes articles in Time Magazine and The Guardian. It is inconceivable that any institution operating in drug policy or enforcement could have remained unaware that DULF operates a compassion club. 

    If political institutions took issue with DULF’s activities, carried out with a clear aim to minimize harms to its community while more than 2,000 people are killed each year in BC by policy inaction, they had ample opportunity to respond when DULF distributed regulated drugs in front of a Vancouver Police station in 2021, requested a business license from the City of Vancouver, and approached Vancouver Coastal Health for funding. 

    Given the transparency with which DULF has operated, it is fair to conclude that these institutions are disingenuously betraying people who are at risk of death while a seven-year unmitigated public health emergency persists.

    In solidarity with DULF, the signatories of this letter demand that Vancouver Police, the City of Vancouver, and the Province of BC: 

    • Immediately cease criminalizing community-regulated safe supply in BC;
    • Restore DULF funding cut by Vancouver Coastal Health; 
    • Formalize a commitment to create a framework to uphold and protect community-regulated safe supply in BC. 

    To view the growing live list of signatories, including individuals, click here. 

    MEDIA: Please engage organizations directly from the list below. 

    Signed: 

    National Organizations

    Canadian Association of People Who Use Drugs

    Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy 

    Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

    CATIE: Canada’s Source for HIV and Hepatitis C Information

    Drug Policy Alliance (USA)

    EACH+EVERY: Businesses for Harm Reduction

    Harm Reduction Nurses Association

    HIV Legal Network

    International Network of People who Use Drugs

    Moms Stop The Harm

    Regional Organizations

    4B Harm Reduction Society, Edmonton, AB

    Alberta Alliance Who Educate and Advocate Responsibly, AB

    Bonfire Counselling, Vancouver, BC

    Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy – Vancouver, Vancouver, BC

    Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy – Calgary, Calgary, AB

    Coalition of Substance Users of the North (CSUN), Lhtako Dene Nation, BC

    Corporación ATS / Echele Cabeza, Colombia

    Disability Arts & Activism Archive, BC

    Harrogate Psychological Services, Edmonton, AB

    HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO), ON

    Kootenay Independent Safe Supply Society, Nelson, BC

    Kootenay Insurrection for Safe Supply, Nelson, BC

    Kykeon Analytics Ltd, Victoria, BC

    Langley Community Action Team: We All Play a ROLE, Langley, BC

    Medicine Hat Drug Coalition, Medicine Hat, AB

    Metzineres – Refuge Environments for Drug Users, Barcelona, Spain

    PAN, Vancouver, BC

    Sure Shot Harm Reduction, Ottawa, ON

    People For Reproductive Rights and Freedoms, Edmonton, AB

    Pivot Legal Society, Vancouver, BC

    Prairie Harm Reduction, Saskatoon, SK

    Project SAFE, Philadelphia, USA

    REMA Feminist & Antiprohibitionist Network, Spain

    Ryan’s Hope, Barrie, ON

    SafeLink Alberta, AB

    SAFER Victoria, Victoria, BC

    Solid Outreach Society, Victoria, BC

    Student Overdose Prevention and Education Network, Hamilton, ON

    The POUNDS Project, Prince George, BC

    Toronto Overdose Prevention Society, Toronto, ON

    Tri-Cities Community Action Team, Tri-Cities, BC

    United For Change Edmonton, Edmonton, AB

    Vancouver Community Action Team, Vancouver, BC

    We Care Substance Use Resource Society, BC

    Workers for Ethical Substance Use Policy, Vancouver, BC

    Whistler Community Services Society, Whistler, BC

    WILD collaborative harm reduction association, Vancouver Island, BC

    Your Journey, Airdrie, AB

    Youth RISE, Edmonton, AB

    -30-

  • INTERNATIONAL INTEREST IN DRUG CHECKING

    INTERNATIONAL INTEREST IN DRUG CHECKING

    This is a guest blog provided by Nazlee Maghsoudi. The Canadian Drug Policy attended HR17 and we are pleased to share this account of the conference.

    INCREASING INTERNATIONAL INTEREST IN DRUG CHECKING: HIGHLIGHTS FROM HR17

    With growing international attention on the impacts and broad potential of drug checking services, a number of events at HR17 featured research findings and frontline experience with this harm reduction intervention.

    For the first time in its history, the 25th Harm Reduction International Conference (HR17) held in Montréal, Canada put drug checking – a harm reduction intervention that provides people who use drugs with information about purity, potency, and composition of their substances – front and centre on the agenda. Reflecting increasing international interest in implementing drug checking services, a pre-conference workshop, panel session, and press conference explored the impacts of drug checking on the health and wellbeing of people who use drugs in a variety of settings and across the spectrum of drug-using behaviour. As a harm reduction conference taking place against a backdrop of an opioid overdose crisis, drug checking in the form of fentanyl test strips were made available in the onsite medical room.

    On May 14, 2017 prior to the official opening of HR17, members of a Canadian National Working Group on Drug Checking organized a “Drug Checking Services and Analysis Workshop.” A free and public event, the workshop was well attended by local and international stakeholders from a variety of disciplines with existing expertise and interest in further learning about drug checking fundamentals along with different models of research evaluation and service provision that are currently being used around the world. Speakers included Helena Valente (Porto University, Portugal), Brun Gonzalez (Programa de Análisis de Sustancias, Mexico), and Dr. Mireia Ventura (Energy Control, Spain). Attendees were treated to speakers’ unique perspectives on the rationale behind drug checking, effective methods in the field, and how to build upon and sustain existing programs. Speakers agreed that drug checking offers much more than test results – including education and support around drug use – and importantly, attracts people who use drugs who otherwise would not interact with health services about their drug use. Noting that the majority of harm reduction efforts have traditionally focused on people who inject drugs, Mr. Gonzalez described drug checking as essential to “full spectrum harm reduction,” an approach that provides appropriate services for all people who use drugs despite where they fall on the spectrum of drug use. Burgeoning evidence suggests that most people intend to change their behaviours (e.g., not take a drug, reduce their dosage, not use alone, etc.) if their drug checking results reveal some unexpected or unknown contents in the drugs they were planning to take. Ms. Valente stressed that although empirical evidence indicates that drug checking is a useful intervention, moving beyond research on behavioural intention will be an important step in establishing the evidence base to support scaling up these services. Dr. Ventura emphasized the value of drug checking in monitoring drug markets and equipping policymakers and health authorities with data to respond to dangerous trends, and noted that Energy Control is responsible for detecting about 65% of new substances to the government. Attendees left the workshop feeling energized and having expanded their international networks and knowledge on drug checking.

    A concurrent panel session titled “Drug Checking: From Dance Clubs to the Dark Web” kept a focus on drug checking on May 15, 2017 and gave conference delegates a chance to learn about the evaluations of innovative drug checking programs. Dr. Mark Lysyshyn presented an important example from Vancouver – one of the cities across Canada experiencing a major opioid overdose crisis – where clients of a supervised injection facility (SIF), Insite, were offered test strips to check their drugs for fentanyl. Dr. Lysyshyn’s research found that offering fentanyl drug checking allowed clients to use the results to reduce harm through dose reduction and thereby decrease their risk of overdose, suggesting that drug checking could be a useful intervention to prevent overdose fatalities, including among people who use drugs accessing a SIF. The presenters also participated in a press conference earlier that day during which journalists were given the opportunity to ask targeted questions about their drug checking research. Julie-Soleil Meeson, a member of the Canadian National Working Group on Drug Checking, also made remarks at the press conference on the various efforts taking place across Canada to implement drug checking.

    Beyond disseminating information on drug checking research, HR17 was also a likely diffusion point for fentanyl test strips, with some conference delegates bringing these back to their agencies in Canada and abroad. Although no results were collected, word of mouth indicated a noticeable amount of results from test strips were positive for the presence of fentanyl.

    We hope the emphasis on drug checking at HR17 not only created a space to learn and share, but also inspired a continuation of efforts to create harm reduction strategies that meet the diverse needs of people who use drugs .

    Written by: Tara Marie Watson, Caleb Chepesiuk, and Nazlee Maghsoudi, Members of Canadian National Working Group on Drug Checking

  • Canada needs to vote against a government that supports Bill C-2 & C-36, and here is why…

    Canada needs to vote against a government that supports Bill C-2 & C-36, and here is why…

    Sex workers who work in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) of Vancouver, British Columbia have faced some of the most extreme violence in Canadian history: Robert Pickton, Donald Bakker, and others have preyed on female identified sex workers here for decades.  So why are the sex workers in this part of Canada more vulnerable than in any other part of the Country? What makes Vancouver different?

    The difference cannot be attributed to Canada’s sex work laws that conspire to force sex workers to work on the street in isolated locations to avoid the police – as that applies to all sex workers across Canada. The difference is the sheer number of injection drug using sex workers that live and work in the DTES. As Canadians, we are letting this community of vulnerable workers down in two very tangible ways with these two recent pieces of legislation:

    The Respect for Communities Act (C-2), and the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (C-36).

    Bill C-2, a Conservative bill that became law this past summer, outlines a new, extremely prohibitive framework for setting up new supervised injection facilities (SIF) across the country, and will also make it difficult for the only existing SIF, Insite in Vancouver, to meet these requirements and remain open. Street based sex workers in DTES have benefitted from the health and safety services provided by Insite over the last 12 years. This new legislation does not directly impact all sex workers in Canada, but it creates a huge disservice to the street based sex workers who also inject drugs.

    Bill C-36, a Conservative bill that became law in November 2014, is one that continues to criminalize the buying of sex between two consenting adults, but NOT the selling of sex.  In a June 5th 2014 CBC News interview, Katrina Pacey from the Pivot Legal Society, referring to Bill C-36, stated that, “This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more crimination, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.”

    As a nurse at Insite, a female sex worker once confided in me that there was concern about a violent john in the area. Due to this risk, she had arranged for someone to ‘spot’ for her (‘spotting’ is the act of looking out for someone’s safety who is engaging in sex work). But Bill C-36 actually considers ‘spotting’ a criminal act in itself, as it equates this activity to being employed by a sex worker, and as such serves to criminalize those who are only wanting to help keep people safe from harm.

    So what are the consequences of both of these bills?

    Addressing C-2, the research shows that many more lives would be saved from overdose and disease with increased SIF’s, but those benefits are being dismissed. And even for people who believe that treatment is the only option for people who use drugs (PWUD), a well-known fact is that, once you are dead, you can no longer receive treatment.

    With C-36 we are continuing to criminalize all activities around sex work except for the actual act of selling sex. Working indoors would undoubtedly be safer, especially if there were other sex workers working together in the same facility, perhaps with a body guard. But they are unable to do so due to the current law prohibiting sex workers to employee staff and work indoors as a regulated business. As such, sex workers often choose to work in remote, isolated areas outside and alone because they do not want to be targeted by law enforcement.

    Bills C-2 and C-36 only serve to maintain an environment where vulnerable Canadians are at risk from physical harm, disease and death. Harm reduction facilities like Insite provide heath and safety services that have been proven, through extensive documentation, to save lives, which is precisely what health care and human rights legislation should be designed to achieve. Bill C-2 and C-36 however, do not.

  • The Political Parties Response to our Drug Policy Questionnaire

    The Political Parties Response to our Drug Policy Questionnaire

    Last month, we worked with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and “moms united and mandated to saving the lives of Drug Users” (mumsDU) to send out a policy questionnaire to all the political parties to get their opinion on issues surrounding an ever-changing drug policy landscape. Our intention was to gauge the direction each party would take Canada if elected on October 19th.

    Fortunately, with the notable exception of the Conservative Party which didn’t respond, the responses we received are very encouraging. All parties gave us answers that indicated a different approach to drug policy would be taken after the votes have been counted, but there are subtle differences between the parties on each of the issues. Below is a summary of answers the parties gave us.

     Does your party support restoring harm reduction as a key pillar in Canada’s federal drug strategy, including support for supervised consumption services as one important component of an overall federal strategy on drugs — and as part of efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV), associated with unsafe injection drug use?

    All responding parties agreed that harm reduction needs to return as a key pillar in Canada’s national drug strategy, including support for safe-consumption services. The NDP mentioned that harm reduction was a “fundamental pillar in framing Canada’s drug policy”. The Liberal Party recognized the importance of harm reduction policies and would prioritize “evidence based policies”. Both the NDP and the Green Party voiced their opposition to Bill C-2, legislation that makes it difficult to open supervised-consumption sites, and promised to address the bill after the election.

    Does your party support Good Samaritan legislation as one important component of a comprehensive approach to addressing the pandemic of death by drug overdose in Canada, and expediting access to naloxone by making it a non-prescription drug?

    We found it encouraging that not only did the Liberal Party agree that Good Samaritan legislation should be enacted, but they correctly cited the United States as a leader in this regard. The Green Party answered both of our concerns in the questionnaire by supporting passing Good Samaritan legislation and easier access to naloxone. In fact, the Greens were the only party that explicitly mentioned that they would allow naloxone to be offered over the counter. Neither the Liberal Party nor NDP mentioned rescheduling naloxone, but instead both mentioned that they would be interested in working with experts and civil society groups such as the CDPC on creating better legislation and good policy on this issue if they were to form government.

    Does your party support considering new approaches to regulating and controlling cannabis production, distribution and possession, as a way of minimizing the harms of the cannabis industry and cannabis use, promote public health, and respect the human rights of adults who use it?

    Ever since Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau admitted to smoking cannabis after being elected to public office, which was followed by promising to legalize and regulate cannabis if elected, drug policy has become an active topic in electoral politics. The NDP mentioned that “no one should go to jail” over possession of small amounts of cannabis, a position they’ve held for over 40 years, since the release of the LeDain commission. The Greens have a position similar to that of the Liberals, full legalization, and mentioned that it’s time for Canada to have “an adult conversation on ending the war on drugs”.

    Given the scientific evidence of the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences, does your party support eliminating the use of such sentences and again allowing judges to employ discretionary practices for these offences?

    Mandatory minimum sentencing is one of the signature pieces of legislation that the Conservative government has put out since winning their majority in 2011.  Both the NDP and Green Party directly mention their opposition to the Conservatives’ Bill C-10, which puts in place mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offences. The Green Party states clearly that it would repeal Bill-10, while the NDP and Liberals say they would consider policies that reduce crime, prevent re-offending, support rehabilitation of offenders and victim’s rights. The Liberal Party does not outright say what their stances on mandatory minimums are for non-violent drug offences in the questionnaire. Instead, they state that mandatory minimums do not deter crime, but that they do have a place “when necessary to protect the public from specific threats.”

    Does your party support Canada advocating at the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS)  for a comprehensive approach to drugs based on evidence, public health objectives, and human rights standards, including support for harm reduction programs?

    Does your party support the creation of a mechanism within the United Nations that brings countries and civil society experts together to consider alternatives to drug prohibition as the main strategy for controlling drugs?

    All political parties that responded agree that Canada needs to take a progressive role at next years United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS). The NDP simply answered “yes” to our questions, and the Green Party said that “Canada should be a leader at the 2016 UNGASS to promote progressive and science-based drug policies that accomplish pressing public health objectives”. The answer from the Liberal Party was clearly the most fleshed out, and well researched. They agreed that civil society groups need to play a strong role both nationally and internationally “in order to find real solutions that are based on evidence.”

    Overall these responses are quite encouraging and indicate that if any of these parties were elected on October 19th, we would see a significant change in direction towards a public health approach to drugs in Canada.

    Check out the full party responses here:

    Liberal Party of Canada Response

    New Democratic Party Response

    Green Party of Canada Response

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network Policy Briefs

    Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network Policy Briefs

    Harm Reduction Brief

    Canada is known around the world as a leader in harm reduction. It is host to the first, and only supervised consumption site in North America, Insite, which has saved lives and helped to build a healthier community in one of the most at-risk neighbourhoods in the county. Unfortunately, the federal government has moved away from harm reduction and more towards a criminal approach to drugs. Of course, there is a way forward. In our policy brief, we make the case that not only should the federal government restore the harm reduction model, but expand upon what is already in place. Please click and read below.

    CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief English

    CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief Français

    Overdose Brief

    The tragedy of drug overdose has increased dramatically in recent years. The rise of fentanyl, an extremely potent opioid, has dramatically increased overdose deaths in recent months. Policy change at the federal level is urgently needed. Fortunately, overdoses are preventable. From allowing for easier access to lifesaving medication such as naloxone, to testing the purity level of street drugs, there are several actions the government can take right now to put an end to these avoidable deaths. Our policy brief contains many commonsense policy solutions that the government can enact immediately. Please click and read.

    CDPC-Overdose-Brief English

    CDPC-Overdose-Brief Français

    Cannabis Brief

    Cannabis law is changing around the world. From the United States to Latin America, a wider consensus is growing that cannabis prohibition has failed to prevent both the sale and consumption of the plant for non-medicinal purposes. Public opinion in Canada and worldwide is experiencing a paradigm shift, and the mindset of policymakers needs to change with it. Clearly, an alternative strategy to this broken system needs to be taken seriously. In the following brief, we outline our strategic recommendations on how the federal government can end prohibition, and use its power to begin the process to create a regulatory system that works.

    CDPC-Cannabis-Brief English

    CDPC-Cannabis-Brief Français

  • Time to rethink our approach to drugs in prisons: Barriers to in-prison substance use treatment and harm reduction programs

    Time to rethink our approach to drugs in prisons: Barriers to in-prison substance use treatment and harm reduction programs

    This is the third in a three-part series highlighting the critical need to consider policy and program reform in Canadian federal prisons. You can read the first post here, and the second post here.

    In this series, I’ve cast doubt on the effectiveness of in-prison drug enforcement and raised a number of issues related to access to medication in Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) institutions. Under the current federal government’s tough-on-crime agenda, the prison population is expanding and a majority of these prisoners report substance use problems. Given this, it’s important to ask: are prisoners receiving substance use interventions that improve their health and well-being, and assist with community re-entry?

    For people hoping to reduce or eliminate their use of alcohol and other drugs, substance use treatment can have a positive impact. Over the years, CSC has developed various programs that target prisoners’ substance use (e.g., moderate and high intensity programs) and has reported successes with those programs in terms of both institutional and post-release outcomes. CSC’s National Correctional Programs Referral Guidelines state that correctional planning should allow for prisoner participation in substance use programming “as soon as possible”. However, many prisoners, including those with severe substance use needs, end up on long waitlists.

    There are numerous barriers to timely and effective delivery of in-prison substance use treatment – prisons are, by design, difficult environments for rehabilitative programming. People are not sent there voluntarily. And the fact that security imperatives take precedence correspondingly shapes operational procedures (e.g., lockdowns) and correctional and program staff attitudes.

    Security infrastructure gets considerably more money than programming, and funding for the latter is more likely to face cuts. For example, Canada’s correctional services ombudsman has noted that investment in CSC’s methadone maintenance treatment – an effective substitution therapy for opiate dependence – was set to be reduced in 2014/15. As prison populations grow and funding becomes scarcer, the resulting overcrowding (e.g., “double bunking,” lack of rooms for programs) and resource issues (e.g., not enough trained staff to meet program demand) will affect access to and quality of programs.

    Another problematic issue is the prioritisation of candidates for substance use treatment programs. Former correctional staff explain that sentence length and release eligibility dates are often used as filters to determine who gets programming first. Those serving shorter sentences (e.g. four years or less) often get swiftly pushed through their sentence plan. Conversely, those serving longer sentences, regardless of their personal history, are de-prioritised or not even considered for programs until many years down the line. This situation creates a lot of inconsistency. And any prisoner applying for parole who has not been able to complete their designated programming is likely to be deemed ineligible or unsupported.

    Lack of timely access to substance use treatment is another reason why some people continue to use drugs while incarcerated. The zero-tolerance policies in place in federal prisons make it difficult to establish harm reduction education and services. Elsewhere I have written in detail about the political and operational barriers, including evidence suppression, that prevent certain in-prison harm reduction programs like safer tattooing and needle distribution initiatives in Canada. In some other countries, these types of programs are operational. Here in Canada, multi-stakeholder efforts are underway to build support for implementation of prison-based needle and syringe programs to help improve the health services available to prisoners.

    It’s essential to remember that most people who serve time in federal prisons eventually return to the community. For people who use drugs, the initial period after release is a critical window – they may return to enabling social networks or reinstate drug use that exposes them to increased risk of overdose. During this transition period, continuity of care, such as linking former prisoners to community-based substance use treatment and harm reduction services, is yet another area that requires significant improvements. This makes it that much more important that people who use drugs receive access to quality treatment programs and services that help them learn to stay safer while they are in custody. If we don’t address these issues, we are doing too little, too late.