Latest / Kvetch & Release / 2024 Safe Supply in Review

Transcript

2024 Safe Supply in Review · Kvetch & Release

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to AM eight hundred CKLW. John Lidkey here,
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: and I am glad to be joined right now by
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: someone who is very knowledgeable on the harm reduction angle,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the drug policy angle, and the opioid and synthetic opioid file,
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: the founder and director of the Center for Responsible Drug Policy,
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: as well as the publication Breaking Needles. Adam Zo joins
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: me right now, Hey, Adam, how you doing good.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: It's a pleasure to be here.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: It's great to have you here. So doing a little
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: bit of a year end reflection right now on this show,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: and yours is one file that I didn't want to
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: leave lingering. There are certain stories that come up throughout
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: the year that you know, you take them or leave them.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: I don't care too much about it, but yours is
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: one that I've followed now for actually a better part
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: of two years, and I wanted to get a reflection
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: on what twenty twenty four has meant when it comes
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: to the drug policy, respective from the harm reduction perspective,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: what you've been seeing on the grounds, because I know
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: that there has been a lot that's been going on
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: just in this calendar year.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: Well, so what I would say is that twenty twenty
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: four is the year when the pendulum really swung on
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: harm reduction and diction policy in Canada more generally, So,
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: you know, we saw that drug decriminalization ended in BC.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: We saw a general recognition that it was a terrible experiment,
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: at least as the way that it was modeled in
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: British Columbia Portugal is a very different model. We saw
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: an increased recognition across all levels of governments that we
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: need to have more accountability for drug use. We saw
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: the BCNDP embrace law and order politics and pivot towards
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: discussing recovery rather than just simply enabling drug use. And
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: on safe supply, which is my parent primary beat, we
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: saw a validation of the concerns about widespread diversion, concerns
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: which had been dismissed in twenty twenty three as disinformation.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: So when I first started writing articles about safe supply diversion,
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: you know, my first one came out in May of
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. The federal government insisted that this was unscientific,
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: that safe supply was backed by strong evidence that I
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: was fear mongering and spreading disinformation. In January and February
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: of this year, we had the BC government come out
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: and say that actually, there are widespread concerns that diversion
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: is happening and it is an everyday occurrence, and that
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: this intervention is not evidence based. Really. Then we saw
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: the London Police admits in June and July that hydromorphone seizures,
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: that's the opioid that is dispensed through safer supply primarily
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: you know, it's as strong as heroin, had that the
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: seizures of this drug had increased by over three thousand
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: percent since safe supply became widely available. Right, And then
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: I got that data showing that in Waterloo, a Niagara region,
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: that they also saw increases of one thousand or one
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: five hundred percent in hydromorphin seizures. So we saw these
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: police departments finally come out and say, actually, we see
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: that there's a problem. We see that this drug is
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: flooding the market, and we know from what we're hearing
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: from our finline officers that safer supply is driving this.
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: We saw the federal governments, which was previously gung ho
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: on decriminalization and gung ho on safe supply, suddenly take
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: things back a lot. So let's say the Minister for
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: Addiction and Mental Health y are a Sachs. You know,
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: she was a giant safe Supply advocate. She would slander
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: anyone who criticized the program, saying that they were fear mongering.
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: The last time that she has publicly advocated for safeer
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: supply was in February of this year. Since then, she's
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: been completely silent. You know, I was at the Canadian
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: Society of Addiction Medicines Annual Scientific Conference last year, sorry,
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: last month, and your sex provided a video recording opening remarks,
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: and over the course of her several minutes speech, she
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: listed all the things that she was proud of in
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: terms of interventions that the federal government had invested into,
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: and safe supply was completely omitted, it says, if it
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: didn't exist. So taking all these things together, we can
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: see that the public is exhausted with harm reduction radicalism,
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: even if more moderate forms of harm reduction are useful.
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: You know, I think we can all agree on that,
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: and that various provincial governments as well as the federal
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: government are realizing that it is that it is a
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: political liability to continue supporting these radical interventions that did
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: not pivot towards recovery.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: You know, I think it's a little bit of the
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: slippery slope is what people started to see, and not
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: in an abstract sense, but in a very real sense.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: I remember the story about the British Columbia hospital where
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: there was a nurse who was told to stop breastfeeding
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: because they were exposed to fentanyl smoke, for example, And
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: they were allowing for people to bring sharps into the
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: hospital because they didn't want to risk upsetting the people
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: who were bringing those in who might be using drugs. Obviously,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: it's been a very quick shift this year away from
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: measures that allowed that type of a thing. What do
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: you think it was that caused overwhelmingly the situation to change.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Was it the reality on the ground, Was it that
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: it became more observant for people, or was it ideological shifts?
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: I think that reality is on the ground, shifted perspectives,
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: and I think that there's a class element here that's
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: really important. So harm reduction radicalism has been around since
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: the mid twenty tens, late twenty tens. You know, we
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: had an increase in supervise injection sites. We had we
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: had safe supply in London, Ontario in twenty sixteen. We
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: had it expand in twenty twenty, and for the most part,
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: people supported it because it sounded great in theory. Right
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: in theory, all of these interventions sound wonderful because the
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: harm reduction activists will say that there is a meaningful
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: effort to shepherd people into recovery. They promised that this
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: would reduce public disorder. They said that open drug use
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: would not be a big problem, and it was apparent
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: a few years ago. It was already apparent that this
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: was not necessarily true. But the problem, though, is that
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: the open drug use and the public disorder that we
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: saw was mostly quarantine to low income neighborhoods. And let's
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: be frank, most Canadians don't care about what happens in
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: those neighborhoods because they don't care about what happens to
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: poor people. But after the pandemic, as addictions spiraled out
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: of control and open drug use spiraled out of control,
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: and decriminalization allowed it to proliferate in every neighborhood, suddenly
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: middle class Canadians said, wait a second, Now I'm finding
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: needles in my playground. Now I'm seeing drug addicts shout
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: at children in the area that I live in, and
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: that changed their perspective. They were no longer able to
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: just support these policies in theory because they as to
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: contend with the real life consequences of these interventions.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Showing up in your own neighborhood can certainly change people's
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: perspectives on things, and I guess shifted away from the
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: ideal to the actual on the ground. We're looking at
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: a I mean, who knows what this government's going to
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: look like in a couple of weeks at them. Things
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: are changing so rapidly right now. There was just a
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: cabinet shuffle that happened. We're expecting a change of government
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: to occur next year, whenever the election will be. How
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: do you think things will look under an expected here
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: qualiev conservative government.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, obviously they're going to invest significantly into recovery.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: That's their whole thing. They've been very staunch critics of
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: radical forms of harm reduction. All at the same time,
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: they do generally recognize that more moderate interventions like needled
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: exchanges can be useful, and so poly f has been
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: He's focused his entire campaign on teaming our cities taming
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: the addiction crisis, ensuring that there is accountability, and I'm
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: very confident that he will follow through that any attempt
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: at decriminalizing drugs will be killed. You know, drug decriminalizations
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: still exists to a certain extent in BC. You can
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: still possess drugs, you just can't use them openly, which
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: makes it easier for drug traffickers to move their product
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: around because they just keep it below a certain threshold
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: that will probably disappear because that's under federal jurisdiction. Right,
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: you might see an attempt to outlaw the prescription of
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: safer supply, and you'll see increased investments into recovery oriented treatment.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: That being said, there's only so much of the federal
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: government can do because healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction. So
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: they can say that they want to chart this direction.
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: But if provincial governments still want to stick with harm
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: reduction radicalism, I mean it's going to be hard to
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: prevent that from happening. So we'll still see you more
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: harm reduction VC, and we'll still see it a lot
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: in Ontario because even though the Ford government is nominally conservative,
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: they've been missing an action here. So we'll see a
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: huge shift towards recovery oriented treatment, but maybe not as
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: much as people want to see because of that jurisdictional difference.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Is there a middle ground between the two when it
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: comes to a recovery based abstinate treatment, which is what's
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: being pushed by the federal government, well, by excuse me,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: by expected Pierre Puali of federal government and more of
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the more progressive harm reduction measures, Like is there a
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: combination that you see as an ideal.
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there are harm reduction initiatives that can
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: help with the addiction crisis, but at the same time,
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: they just need to be better managed and better regulated.
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: So let's say overdose prevention sites slash supervised injection sites
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: right now, they're an absolute disaster because they're underregulated. We
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: often employ people with lived or living experience, which means
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: that these interventions are being sorry, these standards are being
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: staffed by people who were active drug addicts. And we
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: saw what that did in Toronto, right where there was
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: a South Riverdale, you know, overdose overdose prevention site slash
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: supervise injection site, and neighbors said that it became a
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: lawless area that police were dissuaded from enforcing the law
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: near the site. As a result, drug traffickers flocked to
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: the area. Violence increased, children were being harassed by violent
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: drug addicts, which I think we can all agree is
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: a bad thing. You would have drug dealers who would
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: go into this site and they would take up a booth,
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: a booth that was supposed to provide a safe space
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: for people to use their drugs, but you know safe
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: in quotation marks, and they would just they would traffic
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: drugs from that booth for the whole day, right, So
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: they essentially turned the supervised injection side into a drug
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: trafficking hub. Now, in a situation like this, you know
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: it's not a good intervention. But if you had a
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: supervised injection site that was first of all, not near
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: any schools, and second of all, you know, didn't employ
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: act addicts, and third you know, had doctors on site
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: who could prescribe people addiction medications like methodone or suboxone,
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: so that you can get that right away, you know,
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: maybe that would be better. Now. Am I saying that
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: I necessarily support this model? No, because I can see no,
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: Because I can see that there could be problems there.
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: But I think that it's a model that is reasonable
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: enough for us to have discussion about with respect to
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: safe supply. I mean, our current model makes no sense.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: We just hand people bottles and bottles and bottles of drugs,
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: you know, powerful opioids, with no supervised consumption and expectation
• 12:00
  Speaker 2: that they'll change their behavior. But if you switch to
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: a model where you had supervised if you had witness
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: consumption of safe supply, where there was no ability to
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: divert because you have to consume it on site, that
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: would be a lot better. And if you made it
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: recovery oriented so that people would have to eventually transition
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: into treatments rather than stay indefinitely on drugs, that would
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: be a lot better too. I could see this working potentially.
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: It's worth having a conversation, but that's not what we
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: have right now.
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: Well, it's obvious that the status quo is not working
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: at them, and it's something that we're going to be
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: keeping our eye on, and I know that you're going
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: to be keeping your eye on this file going into
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. I want to thank you so much
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: for your time, and this will be the last time
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: that we get to chat this year. Thank you so
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: much for having me happy New Year. Adam Zevo is
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: the founder and director of the Center for Responsible Drug Policy,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: as well as the publication Breaking Needles. We're going to
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: take a quick break. We'll be back right after this