adam zivo: b.c. dodges a bullet by rejecting 'safe supply' of all hard drugs

in a new report released thursday, henry, the provincial health officer, recommended that b.c. legalize drugs through a “non-medical” model of “safer supply” wherein substances like fentanyl, crystal meth and cocaine could be obtained without prescription. the province’s ndp government immediately dismissed the idea — which was praiseworthy, because henry’s report was unscientific and irresponsible.

decades of research show that when drugs are more abundant and accessible, use and addiction increases. to ignore this reality would be grossly negligent. yet henry’s team ignored how the widespread, legal availability of “safe” pharmaceutical narcotics caused north america’s current opioid epidemic ; in the entire almost-100-page report, the oxycontin crisis was mentioned only obliquely in one sentence.

the report further claimed that drug prohibition was “based on a history of racism, white supremacy, paternalism, colonialism, classicism and human rights violations.” to justify this claim, the authors leaned into the fact that canada’s original prohibition laws, dating back to the early 20th century, were motivated by a fear of chinese immigrants who used opium.

sure, dozens of indigenous reserves across canada have independently banned alcohol and drugs —  most community leaders oppose drug legalization and some even refer to safer supply as “pharmaceutical colonialism” —  but apparently we must ignore them. that is just their internalized racism speaking. similarly, should we pretend that strict drug prohibition doesn’t exist in shariah law and the justice systems of many contemporary asian states?

the report thus favoured “non-medical safer supply” wherein “gatekeepers” (physicians and nurse practitioners) would be removed from the equation. if most health-care professionals refuse to prescribe safer supply (because they believe it is reckless ), then they must simply be gotten rid of, it seems.

henry referenced a 2024 study published in the british medical journal that followed 5,882 b.c. drug users for 18 months and found that those who received safer supply drugs were 61 per cent to 91 per cent less likely to die the following week. however, seven physicians who reviewed the study found that its underlying data actually suggested that safer supply had no statistically significant impact on deaths. harm-reduction researchers had simply cherry-picked their data (i.e. fixated on one-week outcomes while ignoring longer-term measures, which is highly unusual) to create a mirage of success.

most of the other studies cited by henry relied on self-reported surveys and interviews with safer supply clients. this kind of low-quality research , which amounts to glorified customer testimonials, would not be acceptable in most health-care settings. similarly, henry claimed that the decades of research supporting opioid agonist therapy (i.e. methadone and suboxone) also showed that safer supply works — yet addiction physicians say these are totally different interventions with non-transferable evidence bases.

just this february, henry was forced to admit in a report that safer supply is “not fully evidence-based.” now she is putting glitter on junk science and engaging in mental gymnastics to advocate for the program’s radical and unprecedented expansion.

over the past year, it has become painfully obvious that the opioids currently being distributed through safer supply are being widely diverted to the black market , where they are flooding communities, enriching gangs and fuelling new addictions among adults and youth . predictably, henry glossed over these issues and omitted any reference to organized crime.

so as i said, thank god that the b.c. government rejected this insane report. but if premier david eby truly opposes drug legalization, why does henry, who has pushed this agenda for years , still have a job? it should not escape our notice that there is a provincial election coming in october, and that eby rolled back other radical drug policies — such as the unrestricted consumption of illicit drugs in hospitals — only after his party had fallen in the polls. if his government is re-elected, what will happen with henry’s recommendations then?