Is Grandpa firmly set in his views? Or is he open to hearing new ideas? Understanding whether the person you’re speaking with is curious, uncertain, or defensive can help guide your approach.
Shift Your Goal
Think of each conversation as an opportunity to plant a seed of curiosity. It is unlikely that someone will change their perspective in a single exchange, but it is possible to create a bit of space to consider other perspectives.
How can you create a learning environment, rather than a debate? Shift your focus from winning the conversation to fostering a thoughtful exchange.
Connect on Shared Values
Look for something you can agree with, no matter how small. No one wants to feel disrespected or dismissed.
Even if someone expresses a belief or assumption you don’t agree with, is there a value, a concern, or a need behind it that you do? Highlighting that commonality can help pave the way for a more respectful and productive conversation.
Answer Briefly and Factually
Instead of getting drawn into a heated back-and-forth over misinformation, calmly correct inaccuracies with clear, fact-based information.
Keep your response brief and pivot back to the larger conversation you want to have.
Pivot to What’s Important
After addressing the facts, steer the conversation toward what matters most to you: the values, the impact, and the real-world consequences of drug policies.
Focus on what’s at stake and the changes that could lead to a more just and compassionate approach.
Know When to Step Back
Sometimes, the best way to ensure a conversation stays on track is knowing when to wrap things up. Remember, your goal is to plant a seed of curiosity and create a learning environment.
Pause and revisit the discussion another time—especially if things have become unproductive.
Today, the Vancouver Police Department reported a decrease in seizures related to simple drug possession since British Columbia’s decriminalization pilot launched in early 2023. While this news is positive, it doesn’t give us the full picture of how drug-related issues are being handled in the criminal-legal system.We need more openness and clarity. To truly reduce harm through decriminalization, we must minimize police involvement and interactions overall. Matters concerning substance use – including referrals and outreach – should be dealt with through health and social systems, not police.
Police Interactions Can Drive Harm
It is important to note that when the VPD reports they made no seizures for simple possession, it does not mean there were no police interactions with individuals who use drugs. We know that interactions with police and criminal justice systems often drive harm for people who use drugs. For example, we do not have enough information about whether police might categorize seizures as “possession for the purposes of trafficking” rather than simple possession. We also lack data on informal interactions with the police that do not result in seizures, but still have similar negative impacts. These unrecorded interactions can cause the same harms as criminalization, including increasing the risk of death from unregulated drugs due to fear of police intervention and drug confiscation.
BC Drug Decriminalization Threshold Too Low
The combined 2.5 gram threshold for decriminalization is too low to effectively decriminalize people who use drugs in B.C. It does not reflect the evidence regarding the quantities people use or the behaviours of a variety of groups, including people living in rural or remote communities and those purchasing from a safer, more trusted seller. As a result, the 2.5 gram threshold is not a useful measure to determine what is simple possession and what is possession for the purposes of trafficking. More than 30 B.C. organizations have endorsed a recommendation to either remove threshold amounts in their entirety, or immediately scale up the decriminalized personal possession threshold to 28 grams (1 oz) for all illicit drugs, including those currently excluded such as ketamine and benzodiazepines.
We Need Drug Policies That Will Keep Us Safe
There are clear links between criminalizing drug use and causing harm. Enforcement has not reduced drug availability or use. It also comes at a high financial cost, while contributing to an increased risk of overdose and cycles of homelessness. Decriminalization, on the other hand, is associated with fewer people being incarcerated or involved with the criminal-legal system, reduced stigma and better access to services – all of which help prevent harm and overdoses. That is why decriminalization is a crucial part of a larger shift in drug laws and policies to make our communities safer for everyone. This shift must also prioritize equitable access to overdose prevention sites, healthcare, responsibly regulated substances, affordable housing, sufficient income, and evidence-based, voluntary, non-profit treatment.
A misinformation campaign around public use legislation distracts from real solutions
January 31, 2024 | One year ago today, British Columbia decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of some drugs in limited locations in a three-year pilot project. Since then, an organized political campaign has spent time and money to cloud public perception and discredit evidence-based efforts. Let’s cut through the rhetoric and talk about what is and isn’t working with decriminalization, and what a better way forward could be.
It’s understandable people are concerned, as drug poisoning deaths reach their highest-ever levels: with 2511 deaths last year alone, communities across B.C. feel the impact of this crisis. Under decriminalization, adults carrying up to 2.5 grams of opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA in specific places will not be subject to criminal charges: police cannot seize their drugs, arrest or charge them for simple possession. Instead, they are directed to services. The pilot excludes schools, childcare facilities, playgrounds, splash pads and skate parks, among other locations. Decriminalization has support amongst public health and policy experts, including B.C.’s provincial health officer and chief coroner.
If you think you are seeing more unhoused people than ever, you’re right – but not because of decriminalization. While drug use rates remain stable, homelessness has risen considerably: up 32 per cent across 11 Lower Mainland communities and 65 per cent in Surrey. Some critics wrongly attribute these worsening social issues to decriminalization. Content creators, treatment industry lobbyists and municipal mayors alike have blamed the policy for alleged spikes in public drug use, fuel for a politicized assault.
But decriminalization cannot build homes; open supervised consumption sites; undo decades of housing divestment; reverse generational traumas of colonization; create responsive health care systems; or influence the unregulated drug market. If the government was serious about tackling the drug poisoning crisis and finding solutions to public drug use, there are clear places to start. Scaling up permanent welfare-rate housing and renewing modular housing leases would reduce visible poverty. Opening overdose prevention services in every community, per the still-unfulfilled 2016 Ministerial Order, would create safer indoor spaces for use while facilitating access to healthcare and treatment, reducing emergency costs, and improving neighbourhood cleanliness.Most importantly, B.C. could prevent deaths by responsibly regulating the drug supply to standardize content, access and use, all while increasing tax revenue and diverting hundreds of millions of dollars of profit from organized crime.
Although evidence-based solutions exist, the government is choosing reactionary politics to push the poorest people in society out of voters’ line of vision. Despite existing limits on decriminalization, the Province introduced Bill 34, which encourages racist and anti-poor stereotyping, ordering police to remove people from public spaces based on suspected rather than observed drug use. Pushing unhoused people into isolation will increase overdose deaths and countless other social harms. So if you are upset about rising poverty and death despite decriminalization, please redirect your anger toward the politicians who care more about getting re-elected than building healthy, happy communities.
Authors:Anmol Swaich, SUDU (Surrey Union of Drug Users) Sarah Lovegrove, the EIDGE (Eastside Illicit Drinkers Group for Education) and Aaron Bailey
Anmol Swaich is a MSc student and Research Assistant in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University and a Community Organizer with Surrey Union of Drug Users.
Aaron Bailey holds a Master of Science in Health Promotion from Queen’s University, serves as Program Coordinator at the Eastside Illicit Drinkers Group for Education (EIDGE) and supports operations of the VANDU Overdose Prevention Site.
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 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
The first steps for systemic change are usually the hardest. But thanks to an international community of experts, including and especially those with lived expertise on the frontlines of Canada’s drug policy crisis, we’ve surmounted that hurdle.
Last month, over 40 researchers, frontline advocates, policymakers, and other experts convened in Vancouver for the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies International Research Roundtable. The end vision of our collaboration is at once simple and dauntingly complex: to realize legal regulation of drugs in Canada to stem the tide of fatalities crippling communities across the country and end the ongoing harms of prohibition. A regulated legal supply of drugs would mean a safer supply of drugs to those who use them, elimination of the toxic drug market controlled by organized crime groups, and financial resources to invest in people who need access to health, housing, and social services.
Peter Wall International Research Roundtable (April 2019)
We began this task by tapping into the collective expertise and wisdom of the people in the room, workshopping ideas, brainstorming solutions, and refining tactics that will bring us to our end goal. It was just a start, but critical if we are to realize the systemic change Canada needs, where principles of human rights and public health that are informed by evidence guide policy decisions—not public sentiment and the moralization of behaviour.
We as a collective began several important initiatives during our four days together:
developing a strategic road map—with concrete steps—for Canada to shift away from the policies of prohibition towards those that promote public health, human rights, and social inclusion based on the legal regulation of currently illegal substances;
outlining areas of further research to inform this strategy and identify regulatory models for the Canadian context;
outlining a knowledge translation strategy aimed at building momentum for policy change; and
identifying opportunities for international collaborations that will support our goals.
From left to right: Steve Rolles, Garth Mullins, Zara Snapp, Scott Bernstein, Suzanne Fraser, Akwasi Owusu-Bempah
Many important advocates and international experts generously offered their insight, and their involvement was critical in shaping the contours of important discussions over the four days:
Zoë Dodd, a passionate long-time human rights and harm reduction leader in Toronto who has for years stood on the frontlines of a grassroots lifesaving efforts
Steve Rolles, an expert in substances regulation from the UK who advised the Canadian government on its cannabis regulatory framework
Dr. Debra Meness, a skilled physician trained in both Western and traditional Ojibwe medicine from the Kitigan Zibi Anishinaabeg First Nation
Paul Salembier, a legal mind skilled at crafting laws and precise legal language that could save lives
Audience members during Peter Wall International Research Roundtable public event (April 2019)
The Research Roundtable culminated in a public forum at SFU Woodward’s, Systems Change: Envisioning a Canada Beyond Prohibition, where activist and award-winning broadcaster Garth Mullins guided our imaginations toward a world where prohibition was a thing of the past. What would that world look like? What would it take to get us there?
Peter Wall International Research Roundtable public event (April 2019)
The event was recorded as an episode of the Crackdown podcast and featured Akwasi Owusu-Bempah (University of Toronto); Steve Rolles (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, UK); Zara Snapp (Instituto RIA, Mexico); and Suzanne Fraser (Curtin University, Australia).
There are mountains of evidence that the ill-conceived “war on drugs” (prohibition) has had significant negative impacts on individuals, families and communities around the world. Far from making citizens safer, prohibition and a criminal justice approach has spawned an illegal market flush with toxic drugs that kills indiscriminately (over 10,000 in Canada in the less than three years).
Prohibition has also needlessly criminalized and ruined the lives of vulnerable people who should have never seen the inside of a jail cell. It forces individuals to turn to more dangerous methods of consumption and dissuades those who want help from accessing it. In short: it has been an abysmal failure.
But
one area of hope was a more clearly-defined path toward the future: creating
regulatory models for opioids, stimulants, sedatives and psychedelics. Tapping
into the collective knowledge in the room, we workshopped models of how four
drugs might be available to consumers in a post-prohibition world, considering
questions such as:
who might have access to
drugs;
how would they access them;
how much can they get, and
where can they consume them.
This focus group was only the first of what we anticipate will be up to 20 focus groups across Canada to gather feedback about what Canadians would imagine a legal system would look like. With the online platform we are developing, we hope to engage an additional 40,000 Canadians in these decisions over the next two years!
Scott Bernstein, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition Director of Policy (April 2019)
Politicians with the power to enact life-saving changes to drug policy have long argued that the lack of viable models for legal regulation were a barrier to action. This project will describe a way forward to legal regulation of all drugs and no longer will they have an excuse for inaction.
Peter Wall International Research Roundtable breakout session (April 2019)
Over the four days, we explored three themes in service of our mission to advance the legal regulation of all drugs in Canada: the regulation of opioids as a response to the overdose crisis; the impact of criminal justice policies on people who use drugs; and the intersections of drug policy and the social determinants of health, including poverty, housing, stigma, income, access to healthcare.
It was from these vantage points the wealth of knowledge in the room surfaced solutions and strategies to make our shared vision a reality. The Roundtable engendered many important discussions over the four days.
It is now time to turn words into action.
The Peter Wall International Research Roundtable was supported by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, Community Action Initiative, BCCDC Foundation for Public Health, and SFU Woodward’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This article first appeared as an op-ed in the National Post, October 22, 2014
A particularly potent batch of heroin recently resulted in 31 overdoses at Vancouver’s Insite safe injection clinic. The facility proved its value yet again, as staff applied immediate treatment and ensured none of the victims died. But what about those who can’t access Insite? In 2013, 308 people died in British Columbia due to illicit drug overdoses, the majority of which were opioid-related.
Canada-wide, we can only speculate about the total numbers because there is no national database tracking overdose deaths. But the numbers we do have, from a patchwork of provincial data and news reports, tell us that far too many Canadians are dying from an entirely preventable phenomenon. And not preventable in the sense of “well, if people didn’t use drugs, there wouldn’t be overdoses.” While that’s essentially true, we know people will use drugs. One hundred years of prohibition hasn’t stopped that.
No, these deaths are preventable thanks to easy-to-implement, non-controversial policy changes at our disposal.
The most pragmatic and immediately effective remedy would be to improve access to naloxone, a 40-year old medication that, when administered during an opioid overdose, reverses the effects of the drug. It has no narcotic effect and people cannot become dependent on it.
Currently, naloxone is used predominantly by ambulance and medical staff — like those at Insite — but we could save countless more lives if it were available to those most likely to be with someone experiencing an overdose. Eighty-five percent overdoses occur in the presence of others, often in the home. For this reason, naloxone should be included in provincial drug plans and made available over the counter.
In addition, we should scale up existing “take-away naloxone programs” to increase the distribution of overdose response kits among people trained to prevent, recognize and respond to overdoses. Streetworks in Edmonton pioneered this programming in Canada, and similar initiatives have spread throughout the country. The most robust program — Take-Home Naloxone (THN) — was established at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control in 2012. THN operates in 51 sites, from large urban hubs like Vancouver and Surrey, to smaller rural centres such as Cranbrook, Campbell River and Fort St. John. More than 2,200 people have been trained, including staff and volunteers at health and social service agencies, as well as friends and family members of people who use drugs. THN has dispensed more than 1,200 kits, and 125 overdoses have been reversed.
Clearly naloxone is a life-saver, but reducing barriers to its access and providing training are just part of a comprehensive overdose response. We also need to immediately implement appropriate guidelines for opioid prescriptions, improve national data collection on overdose events, and reduce barriers to calling 911 during a drug overdose. Again, most overdoses occur in the presence of other people. Though witnesses to heart attacks rarely hesitate to call 911, witnesses to an overdose often lose precious minutes wavering over whether to call for help — if they make the call at all. They may fear arrest, the loss of custody of children, or judgment from friends and family.
This would be resolved by the passage of Canadian 911 Good Samaritan legislation — so called because it provides protection from arrest and prosecution for drug possession if the evidence is obtained as a result of the person calling 911. In the last four years, 11 U.S. states have passed some form of this legislation, often with bipartisan and near-unanimous support.
Such legislation recognizes that accidental drug overdose is a health issue that doesn’t merit attention from the criminal justice system. Indeed, public health imperatives should drive all policy relating to overdose response.
While much of the responsibility for this issue rests at the local and provincial level, ultimately the federal government plays an important leadership role in setting the overall tone and guiding any national strategy. At the 2012 annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, delegates passed a resolution recommending that member states include effective elements for the prevention and treatment of overdose in national drug policies, including the use of naloxone. Although the Canadian delegation supported this resolution, and despite the simplicity of implementing such programs and policies, to date the government has not acted on this matter. It’s time for that to change.
In 2013, 308 people lost their lives due to illicit drug overdoses in BC alone. The worst part? Drug-related deaths from opiate overdose are entirely preventable.
And not in the sense that “well if people didn’t use drugs… there wouldn’t be overdoses.” Because while that’s essentially true, we know that people will use drugs. One hundred years of prohibiting drugs and arresting and incarcerating people who sell and use drugs hasn’t stopped that.
We need to be realistic and practical. Drug use does happen and it will happen. So let’s get on with preventing deaths and injuries from drug overdose. Here at the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, we’ve worked with experts across the country to come up with set of policy changes that can save lives and make Canada safer for all.
While putting together this brief, we met many dedicated, compassionate people who work in frontline overdose prevention programs across Canada. One of the most pragmatic and effective interventions to prevent overdose injury and death is the “take-away naloxone program.” Based on 180 similar initiatives in the US, the program involves distributing overdose response kits – dubbed take-home-naloxone kits – to people who have been trained to prevent, recognize and respond to an overdose. Naloxone is a 40-year old medication that when administered during an opiate overdose reverses the effects of the drug. It has no narcotic effect and people cannot become dependent on this drug.
Streetworks in Edmonton pioneered this initiative in Canada and similar programs have spread throughout Canada. The country’s most robust overdose program – “take-home naloxone” (THN) – can be found at British Columbia’s Centre for Disease Control’s (BCCDC) harm reduction resource Toward the Heart.
Through a series of participating organizations throughout BC, the naloxone program operates in 35 sites, from large urban hubs such as Vancouver and Surrey, to smaller rural centres such as Cranbrook, Campbell River and Fort St. John. Nearly 1000 people have been trained including staff and volunteers at health and social service agencies, as well as friends and family members of people who use drugs. Over 600 kits have been dispensed to clients who use opioids and various resource materials are being developed to assist community partners to increase the reach of the program. Since its origins in 2012, 55 overdoses have been reversed.
While these simple yet effective initiatives are demonstrably preventing overdoses, significant challenges prevent these programs from being scaled up. Naloxone remains a prescription-only medication, and it’s costly and not covered by provincial drug plans. An even more significant challenge is the lack of a national Good Samaritan law, one that prevents people from being arrested and charged with drug possession if they call for help during an emergency. Eleven US states have passed Good Samaritan laws, often with bipartisan support from legislators.
Our hope is that this policy brief will help support efforts to clear away the barriers blocking overdose programs. That’s the most realistic way to prevent drug-related deaths from opiate overdose.
