Vancouver Guest Editor
'On their watch, people continue to die': Donald MacPherson on why B.C. needs to act on a safe drug supply
By Cherise SeucharanStar Vancouver
Fri., Oct. 4, 2019timer5 min. read
VANCOUVER—The provincial government's failure to act has resulted in thousands of deaths due to a toxic drug supply, says one of Canada's leading experts on drug policy.
Donald MacPherson, who is this week's guest editor for The Star Vancouver, has dedicated his life to advocating for better drug policies. He was the City of Vancouver's first drug policy co-ordinator, a post he held for 22 years, and in 2013 received the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for his work.
MacPherson discussed how the provincial and federal governments policies have directly led to the toxic drug supply now flooding the streets. While drug-treatment programs can be effective, he says it's time to address the supply side of the opioid crisis and push for action.
Has the criminalization of drugs directly led to the high number of deaths in the opioid crisis?
Absolutely. Canada's drug policy is founded on drug prohibition and it has created the fentanyl problem. The iron law of prohibition favours substances that are highly concentrated, easy to smuggle into the country, so it forces the market to a much more dangerous place in terms of the concentration of the substance. ... It's a problem created by the policy itself. It's a total public policy disaster.
Why is there an urgent need to have a supply of safe drugs?
Harm reduction is working to some extent, but the supply is as bad as ever. This problem is not going away until we change how we are perceiving it and deal with the supply side. Cops used to arrest the dealers and that was how we dealt with the supply side. People have been talking about treatment, but not a safe supply. But it's a false dichotomy because you need to do both, people are at different stages of using. We now have to attack the supply side by replacing it completely.
Does the federal government have a role to play in this?
Absolutely. The federal government should have declared some sort of national emergency, because, according to the most recent numbers, 12,800 people have died in the past three years. That's insane. It is so far beyond any other public health emergency we've had in modern history and still it is not seen as an emergency. If people were dying of any other cause, it would be seen as a national crisis.
As we move toward the federal election, how do you feel about how the federal parties have addressed the opioid crisis and the issue of safe supply?
The parties aren't being pressed on decriminalization. … I don't think any of them are talking about safe supply in an official way. But it's an issue that's accelerated in the lead-up to the election, where the conversation around safe supply is more urgent now than six months ago, when parties were making their platforms.
Politicians really need to be educated on this, and they keep saying the same mantras. It's either they are tough on crime or on the other end, they want more treatment and recovery — but they don't have a real understanding of the urgency on the supply issue.
I think the Liberals, NDP, or Greens green might move toward a safe supply policy after the election. The Conservatives are more of the status quo.
What has the role of the province been in the opioid crisis?
The province has failed to mount a truly robust emergency response and, on their watch, people continue to die.
The province created a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to accelerate their response, but they've created a Ministry of Mental Health and Additions with no money and no power.
So the minister (Judy Darcy) has not been able to convince her cabinet colleagues they need to step it up. They really hung her out to dry, because they gave her an impossible task and they didn't give her money, because she relies on the Ministry of Health for operational capacity.
Find everything you need to know about what's happening in Vancouver in our Morning Headlines email newsletter.
There have been concerns, especially from parents, about drug paraphernalia left in public parks and spaces. Some say this is a reason not to have safe consumption sites in residential communities. What are your thoughts on that?
That's a legitimate concern, because it's like any waste; you want to have ways to keep streets clean. We should be advocating for more supervised consumption sites, and decriminalization, because when people use in a criminalized environment you don't want to walk around with a syringe to take it to a needle exchange box, because you don't want to get caught by the police. Those are real problems but they are easily solved, and you can be employing people who use drugs to help out with that. Everyone wants a cleaner community.
If we were to move toward a program around safe supply, what would that look like?
It would be provincewide, because there are people dying everywhere in the province. It would have multiple access points, which could be health clinics, pharmacies, physicians offices, or any of the harm reduction services we have in B.C.
Donald MacPherson: Toxic drugs are a crisis. If B.C. and other provinces don't act, they'll have to answer for the lives lost
It's a matter of providing broad access to the population at risk and putting a mechanism in place to train a workforce as you would with any other public health emergency, and create a system of contact until we reached enough people at risk so that the toxic poisonings are reduced.
A group of people in B.C. have proposed a "Heroin Buyer's Club" where drug users source their own safe supply and distribute to others, similar to marijuana buyer's clubs in the past. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of the buyer's club model?
The compassion club model worked for many years in many years in locations where people with severe health issues weren't able to get medial cannabis, which were rooted in a health-care approach and helping people without being criminalized
I think it's something that is emerging now because of the lack of government action, people who use drugs themselves are trying to figure this out in the same way.
It's people with lived experience who are often the best people to be able to connect with others at high risk of overdose, and if they can test substances so they don't have fentanyl in them they can help supply a safer product to their peers. But it's at great risk to their liberty because it's illegal — we've put them between a rock and a hard place.
Some answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Cherise Seucharan is a Vancouver-based reporter covering crime and public safety. Follow her on Twitter: @CSeucharan
British Columbia, Vancouver
More Vancouver