Effective, Economical and Compassionate. What We Should Expect From Our National Drug Policy?

Since the implementation of our National Drug Policy, 'Controlled Drugs and Substances Act' in 1996 and the amendments in 2012, Canada has seen a steady increase in the number of incarcerated individuals as well as overdose deaths from illicit drug use. Our current policy is costing Canadians millions of dollars and yet producing very limited results, if any at all. Stiffer penalties have resulted in longer and more incarcerations for addicts, while offering the general public nothing with regards to safer streets or lower property crime. Our current policy is only effective in shaming and punishing the addict but does nothing with regards to stemming the use or distribution of illicit drugs. As a matter of fact, Canada's policy only regulates the control of illicit substances and offers no strategy for curbing the use or dealing with the mental aspects of addiction. Canada's policy is based on punishment and incarceration rather than compassion and rehabilitation and has proven to be anything but effective. The current fentanyl crisis facing Canada and North America is proof of this.

Drug seizures actually do little to nothing at all to curb addiction. As a matter of fact, seizures actually do nothing more than simply frustrate and punish the addict. Addicts require their drug of choice to survive, or so they believe. Going without their drug of choice (DOC) is not an option as being without leads to severe and excruciating withdrawal symptoms beyond anything that most non-addicts have ever experienced. These symptoms are 10 times worse than the worst cold or flu you have ever been inflicted with. Withdrawal is such a frightening experience that maintaining consistent access to one's drug of choice is seen as a basic need and a means to carry on even if it is for just one more day. An addict will do whatever it takes to maintain this supply. Drug seizures disrupt this supply and life line to the addict. and force them to seek alternative solutions. Addicts are ultimately forced to find alternative sources of their DOC and sometimes similar drugs that offer temporary relief of their withdrawal symptoms. Typically these alternatives involve risk. Perhaps the addict is forced to buy from someone they do not know. Perhaps they will end up using a new product that they are unfamiliar with. Perhaps it involves paying a higher price for this new product and therefore could force them to commit a crime to secure the additional funds. Sometimes it simply results in sharing supply with another addict or re-using or finishing off contaminated products. In any case, regardless of situation, an addict will find a way to replace the product that was seized by the police. In every case, this poses a risk to the addict and results in nothing more than an inconvenience and actually acts more like harm promotion than harm reduction. The removal traditional illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin have driven up the costs for these products and opened the door for alternative, synthetic, cost effective , extremely addictive and harmful products such as methamphetamine and fentanyl. It is our policy that filters addicts to these devastating products. Continued policy direction will eventually lead to even more harmful products such as carfentanil and W-18 showing up on the streets in even more regularity.

"Canada needs to move beyond policies like the National Anti-drug Strategy (See below) and its focus on criminalization of people who use drugs. It's time for a public health approach to drugs that focuses on prevention, harm reduction, treatment, education, equity and health promotion, Given that criminalization has failed to deliver on its intended goals, we need to make sure that funding for these important services is at least as generous as it is for enforcement." Dr. Paul Hasselback, former Chair of the BC Health Officers' Council.

The name itself, 'National Anti-Drug Strategy", says it all. From the strategy title all the way through the policy, addicts are outcast, shamed and criminalized. The policy uses fear and penalties in an attempt to achieve it's goals of reducing drug use and creating safer and healthier communities. The prevention aspect of the strategy creates fear by education about the penalties and downside of drug abuse. It does very little in the way of addressing the mental issues and traumas associated with drug abuse. The treatment aspect of this approach falls so far short of being effective it is almost considered a miracle when it actually works for an addict. Access to treatment is difficult with wait times into the months in some places. Actual success rates of treatment are low as there is very little to no support once this limited treatment ends. The third and final aspect, combating illicit drugs, continues to be the focus of our attention. Funds are directed to this aspect of the strategy in the millions and millions of dollars. Policy adjustments continue to be made in this area with more drugs and drug ingredients being banned, stiffer penalties and encouraged incarceration. Addicts are depicted as criminals that require punishment in an attempt to stem drug distribution and use. This strategy has been proven ineffective and backward time after time and yet our strategy and focus does not change. We continue to throw millions of dollars into an approach that does nothing to actually help the problem. As a matter of fact, this approach continues to strain the system by requiring additional resources for the both the legal and penal systems. It has been estimated that 80 percent of incarcerated individuals in Canada are there on drug related, or drug involved charges. Even while these individuals are incarcerated, very limited resources are available for the rehabilitation of the addict. Remands and jails are riddled with drugs, allowing the addict the opportunity to continue with their active addiction while the government takes care of their basic needs, food, clothing and shelter. According to Stats Canada, on average, in 2014/2015, institutional expenditures amounted to about $302 per day for federal offenders and $199 per day for provincial and territorial offenders. Given that it costs this much to house a person, why do we only offer sober living houses $40 / day for a maximum of three months for addicts trying to change their lives. There is a huge disparity or priority issue at play here. It is almost as if we are rewarding criminal behavior as we are willing to throw at lot more money at taking care of the addict once they commit a criminal act as opposed to the addict looking to change their life and recover from addiction.

It is time for a drastic change in policy. It is time that we begin to make right the wrongs of the past. It is time that Canada recognizes their part in facilitating and promoting addiction issues and to look at repairing the damage we have done rather than trying to lock away the issue. A higher than average proportion of addicts in our country is indigenous people. This is directly correlated to the historic treatment of these people for the past 150 years. We have also abandoned the most vulnerable people in our society, those with mental heath issues, as a high proportion of homeless people struggle with mental health or co-occurring disorders. Child poverty and street youth is rampant in our urban centers and without support, the eventual shift to addiction and criminalization is almost a foregone conclusion. It is time to actually help these people rather than simply house them in remands and jails. The vast majority of inmates fall into at least one of these three categories.

The CDPC lists a number of useful and proactive recommendations to establish a national drug policy that is effective, economical and compassionate. It is possible to have all three. As a matter of fact, any policy that does not take into account all three is both damaging and dividing to the national culture. As a civilized and developed nation, should Canada not do everything that it can to protect the rights of and help the most vulnerable people of their society. Should we not do everything that we can to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people rather than turn our heads or simply lock away, over and over. Addiction affects us all, whether we are an addict, related to an addict, know of an addict, are the victim of a crime committed by an addict or even a first responder witnessing the devastating implications of addiction. Given the abundance of evidence in front of us proving what doesn't work, is it not time that we try a different approach? Our society's future could very well depend on these changes.