DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 01
Once upon a time, the drug consumption site in Downtown East Side was a hot topic among the local Chinese Community. After many decades, with the introduction of drug decriminalization， the argument has spread into Richmond.
Last year, the number of drug overdose deaths reached a new peak. So, early this year, the city of Richmond brought this controversy to the city, triggering a large protest at the city hall to express dismay.
BC had 2511 Overdose deaths in 2023, and Richmond accounted for 26 out of all the cases. On Jan. 30th, two councillors introduced a proposal to the Standing Committee, exploring the possibility of establishing a supervised drug consumption site at the Richmond Hospital, resulting in 8 to 1 approval. The committee would ask the city council to consider whether or not to set up a site near Richmond Hospital so that drug users can consume safely.
The motion was moved by City Councilors Kash Heed and Laura Gillanders. The motion emphasized how to address the problem of drug abuse in public places and relocate the drug abusers to a safe place, as well as to enable the police, firefighters and outreach workers to direct them to specific locations to save their lives. The claim said the opening of a safe drug injection site where addicts can use drugs under the staff’s supervision. Meanwhile, the staff cannot give out drugs directly to the user; but they can administer naloxone, the antidote, the location can also serve as a point of referring drug users to access other services.
Heed stressed that public drug policy should not push drug users into unsafe places, including back alleys, but should instead create safe places for drug use, and the facilities should be located near Richmond Hospital.
He claimed that there were some misunderstandings among the public about the proposal, explaining that it was a regulated drug abuse site, not an overdose prevention site, which was operated by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, with medical staff working on site, and that the drug overdose prevention site was jointly managed by trained staff.
In the committee vote on February 5, a total of 8 councilors supported it, including the mayor and several lawmakers, The only one casting the opposite vote was Chinese Canadian Councilor Chak Au.
A week later, the matter was brought to the General Council meeting on February 12th.
Councilor Au criticized that this was not a public consultation or public study, but a directive to staff to use a practical analysis as a cover to achieve their goals, and that it was also the reason why the public felt that a decision had been made and their views were not heard. He said that despite the availability of safe drug use facilities, the number of drug abuse deaths in the Lower Mainland has not decreased, and if the plan is effective, the number of deaths should decrease.
Au said that if a safe drug site were to be opened in the center of Richmond, it would not be the only one of its kind in the city. He believed similar facilities could be opened in the Steveston and Hamilton districts in the future.
City Councillor Heed objected to the position, describing the remarks as inappropriate and spreading public panic.
This incident sparked opposition in the Chinese community, particularly in the city of Richmond, and some people launched an online signature campaign that began collecting signatures on February 4. They had already collected 18,000 signatures by the night of the city council meeting.
Meanwhile, before the evening’s meeting, the anti-drug organization held a rally outside the city council, and hundreds of people gathered outside the gate, holding signs and chanting anti-drug slogans. Due to the large number of attendees, the city government has arranged additional security guards and staff to maintain order, as well as crowd control to restrict people from leaving the building.
Before the meeting, a group of protesters rallied outside the city council, hundreds of protesters holding signs and chanting slogans against drugs. Initially, only the people registered to speak were allowed to enter, later those who have not entered will be admitted in batches.
Later, at around 7:30 p.m., the staff stopped more residents from entering because of maximum occupancy in the fire code. Meanwhile, the conflict continued between the two sides.
During the meeting, a large number of people entered the lobby, including a small number of people supporting the supervised drug-use facility, clashes with a large number of opponents, and some swearing, including a white woman who made racially discriminatory remarks during the altercation, criticizing the demonstrators as Canada’s problem, and asking one of the men to return to Hong Kong, shouting that they were all corrupted.
The woman later told Richmond News that she was sorry for the incident because she was told that the drug addict should die. However, the paper did not have a response from the other side.
At the City Council meeting that night, there were 19 items, and whether or not to support the establishment of a supervised consumption facility at Richmond Hospital was listed on the 18th item, right before the Lansdowne Mall redevelopment Plan. However, due to the large number of people registering for the speakers, more than 130 people were queuing on the list, including 85 of those who had already registered online. Only about 50 people spoke in front of the city council by the end of the night.
In addition to the arguments expressed by the public in favor of, or against the supervision of drug use facilities, there were also some side stories. One of the speakers questioned whether there was a conflict of interest with Heed being hired as a special adviser to Lucy Scientific Discovery Inc.
The psychotropic drugs manufacturer issued a public press release last year indicating that Heed had been appointed as a special adviser. However, Heed immediately refuted and denied it at the meeting, and even threatened to take legal action against the speaker.
An online signature campaign was launched to demand that Heed and the City Council publicly clarify his employment status at Lucy Scientific and any potential conflicts of interest.
In the Council hearing, some people spoke on the spot, others expressed their views via video conferencing, including many Chinese residents who prepared speeches to express their views to the city government. A woman spoke and burst into tears, causing the entire room to become somewhat emotional, some people started to shout slogans in the Council Hall. The Mayor quickly stopped the commotion. He said that this was an important and solemn place, where important decisions were to be voted on, and the public who participated could only participate respectfully, under the rules, and should not be any reaction to the remarks of the speakers, whether they supported or disagreed with the speakers. Demonstrations are also not allowed in the city when the city hall is a carnival or a theatre.
After four hours, the first night’s meeting was called to an end, and the mayor decided to adjourn the meeting, postponing items 18 and 19 to 7 p.m. the following night. By the second night, City Councilor Au had moved a postponement of the vote to give the city more time to conduct a public consultation and question why it was rushing to vote that night, saying the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority did not mention the urgency of opening the facility, and the city government wasted resources to implement it. However, the motion was rejected by the other members.
The Council continued to arrange for the public to speak, again, most of them opposed the motions.
Dozens of people spoke at the meeting, during which there was a lot of applause and boos, they said that it harmed the community and that the number of deaths from overdose was rising, proving that the effectiveness of the facilities was limited.
However, proponents argue that the two should not be confused and that more than 2500 people died from drug overdoses in the province last year, with only 26 in Richmond, and only one in a drug surveillance facility.
Near the end of the process city councilor’s speech, there were some unexpected dramatic scenes.
Councilor Carol Day questioned some of the opponent’s remarks, citing some fanning posts translated from Chinese websites, and she was angry that some attendants picked up banknotes and waved them at the scene, saying that it was an insult to another city councilor (KASH HEED).
One of the Chinese Council Alexa Loo changed her position from the Standing Committee and voted against the motion. She read a letter from a Victoria resident who said that the situation had changed and became unsafe after similar facilities opened in her community and businesses had left the community and that she hoped Richmond would not follow in the footsteps.
Lo said that safe injection houses are not safe, and Richmond should focus on drug prevention and treatment rather than setting up injection houses.
Meanwhile, Heed criticized Lo for changing her stance and pointed out that the opponents had misunderstood the scheme. However, it attracted criticism in the room. People shout from the scene, and the Mayor stops Heed from continuing to speak.
Right after, the council voted, with 7 votes in favor and 2 votes against.
Under the motion, the City will direct City staff to analyze and evaluate the benefits and potential challenges of setting up a drug use monitoring facility within the premises of Richmond Hospital.
However, less than 13 hours later, the whole event changed completely, and the whole saga came to an abrupt end.
Thank you for listening, I’m ANDY CHEUNG
DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 02
Welcome back to the second episode of our special report on the Drug program. Yesterday, we recapped a series of events at the City of Richmond that brought up the drug issue once again and instantly became a hot topic in the community. We saw the entire process of the council, from bringing in from the Standing Committee to the completion of the vote in the city Council took just over a week.
The more dramatic part was the incident that took place within 13 hours after the vote, which caused all the previous controversy to be abruptly cancelled.
And the ins and outs are still a big mystery.
Premier David EBY was asked about the Richmond drug controversy at an unrelated event in North Vancouver on Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 13. Just the night before Richmond finally voted YES to open a Supervised Consumption Facility
Eby said he had spoken to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and was trying to understand why Richmond was voting on the proposal at this moment, and whether it met Richmond’s needs.
He quoted the Health Authority and said that Richmond did not immediately need the facilities.
The problem is, if the provincial government had stated that it was not necessary the day before, the health authorities did not know why the city of Richmond had introduced the initiative. So what is the origin of the motion?
After more than eight hours of prolonged public hearings, the city council finally passed the vote on a supervised consumption facility.
In our interview with Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie the day after the vote on February 14, he was asked about the next steps of the city hall, such as should the city start the application process, or will it be the Vancouver Coastal Health to start the application.
He said that the application will be submitted by Coastal Health, and they will conduct their research, including various arrangements and responses and social impact etc.
He said because the site will be in a hospital, Coastal Health would not need to apply any zoning change on land use in the future.
According to the explanation, the initiative of the facility should lie within the provincial government, and be decided by Coastal Health. There are not many decisions that the city government According to the explanation, the initiative of the facility should lie with the provincial government and be decided by the Health Bureau. There are not many decisions that the city hall to involved in. But then it led to more questions.
For example, the city council would invite some police representatives to attend the meeting when it comes to police matters, and invite representatives from the chamber of commerce when making business decisions.
In the case of the consumption site, which was made by the Health Authority, people may wonder, where was the representative of Coastal Health, or someone officially representing the agency? During the entire public process, from the standing committee to the final vote at city hall, should someone serve as an expert witness, speak responsibly, and accept questioning?
According to city records, many of the people who supported prison facilities that night were people whose relatives had died from drug overdoses, drug user interest groups, and staff related to drug services, David Byres, himself is the coordinator of one of the departments of the British Columbia Drug Use Center and is considered an official expert witness.
However, in his speech, he only refuted some arguments against the supervision of drug facilities, insisting that it would not promote drug abuse or attract drug users from outside Richmond. He also said that drug addicts should be equally worthy of everyone’s time, care and sympathy. He said drug addicts are also human beings, but they are portrayed as dangerous, criminal and harmful to the community.
He presented as a resident of Richmond at the meeting, and did not talk about whether, when, or how the Health Authority would introduce the facilities in Richmond, but only talked about the benefits. Simply, the provincial government did not formally participate in the entire process.
Just before noon on Wednesday, February 14, a few hours after our mayor’s interview, the controversy has taken a sudden twist.
BCNDP MLA of South Central Richmond, Henry Yao, who has been staying silent during the incident, took the lead and issued a statement, saying that Vancouver Coastal Health would not set up a safe injection site in Richmond and expressed his gratitude to all those involved in the process, saying that he, as a MLA, has been working hard to ensure that all voices and views are heard by the provincial government.
Mr Yao stressed that like the opposition party leaders Kevin Falson, BCUnited MLA Teresa Wat, and the NDP, all believe that harm reduction can save lives and improve community safety, but also believed that services must be tailored to each community.
He pointed out that Richmond’s proposal had been made without consultation with the provincial government. After the doctors and supervisors at Coastal Health studied the matter, they believed that the method was not suit for Richmond.
Yao said the provincial government will continue the effort to save lives and help those in need, including expanding access to addiction treatment.
Later that same day, the Vancouver Coastal Health said it would not establish a standalone supervised consumption facility in Richmond.
They point out that the latest public health data showed a similar facility is not the most appropriate service for people at risk of drug overdose in Richmond.
The Health Department stressed that such facilities work best in communities with high-risk populations, as people in need do not travel far to access services but will continue to work with the municipality to assess how to strengthen drug overdose prevention services and ensure that people in the community are safe so that they can receive treatment and no longer include the promotion of supervised consumption facilities.
Public health data shows that more than 1,000 people in Richmond have opioid use disorder and about 600 have stimulant use disorder. According to the Health Authority, the overdose death rate in Richmond is relatively low and the number was slowly declining, each fatality represents the loss of a young life, leaving relatives and friends in misery.
After the commotion, some group held another rally and hundreds of people gathered outside the Richmond Library at the weekend.
In another telephone interview with our station, the mayor said some members of the community were still having some misunderstandings, especially regarding the most updated situation of the facilities, and so clarification was needed.
He reiterated six times that the discussion on the facility was done, and no further discussion was needed. VCH would not consider the facility and reiterated that the dispute was over.
When asked about the fact that he was asked to speak in a motion in the city council, involving more than 100 people lining up for eight hours, both sides of the argument for and against made great efforts to express their views on the city government, especially those who spoke in favor of drug facilities, and believed that they won a majority of votes in the democratic process of one vote for the city council, but in the end the city government abandoned the plan because of the announcement of the health bureau afterwards, and how the city government explained to the many people involved in the incident. He reiterated that the incident was over and it was important to save lives, but this was the decision of the Health Bureau and the provincial government, and the plan would not be implemented.
When asked about the motion involving more than 100 people, lined up for 8 hours, members from both sides made great efforts to make their opinions heard by city hall. Moreover, the proponent of the consumption facilities, who have won the majority vote in the council, could believe the plan should go ahead. But in the end, the announcement from the VCH and the city shut down the plan. Should the participants deserve some explanation from the government? The mayor said again that the incident was over. This decision should made by the Health Authority and the provincial government, so the plan would no longer be implemented.
The Mayor said the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority’s Chief health When asked about the motion he was involved in in the city council, which involved more than 100 people lining up for 8 hours to speak, both the supporters and opponents made great efforts to express their opinions in the city hall, especially in support of drug facilities. The party believed they could win the support of the majority of votes in the democratic process of the one-person vote for city councilors. However, in the end, the city government abandoned the plan due to the subsequent announcement by the Health Bureau. How did the city government explain to the many people who participated in the incident? He said again that the incident was over and saving lives was important, but it was the decision made by the Health authority and the provincial government, and the plan would no longer be implemented.
He said the Chief Medical Officer gave them a support letter to encourage the city to discuss the issue. In addition, on the eve of the formal discussion, she sent a letter to the city to show her support for the motion.
The mayor said, but shortly after the vote was completed, when the city contacted the Health department trying to continue the discussion, the heart authority said that they would not go ahead emphasis the plan should be over.
The mayor was asked, with so much manpower, material resources and political controversy, if he felt deceived by the provincial government? Will he follow the Mayor of
Surrey’s example, and fight against the BC government decision to the end. The Mayor said he would not sue the BC government, and again, reiterated that the matter was over, but he was surprised that the health authority and the BC government could make a decision so quickly.
Mayor Brodie added that the public needs to respect the rules of the game, which should be entirely within the executive power of the provincial government and the health authority, and they have all the right to make any decision. Again, the whole discussion should be concluded.
As for why the city’s position changed so quickly in just over 10 hours, from very enthusiastic to pushing the agenda, shifted to complete stoppage? And why, as the mayor said, before the whole event, a support letter was sent to the city but Premier David EBY said the health department did not think Richmond needed such a facility?
Why did the health bureau write to the city government to support the establishment of a drug control facility when the premier said the authority didn’t know the city was going to set up a facility? Meanwhile, if you can send a letter, why not send an expert witness to the hearing?
Another question was, for all the supporters of the consumption facility, who worked so hard at the public hearing, mysteriously said nothing and did not condemn coastal health ignoring their voices?
Should the city hall and the health authority make such a letter public, to clarify the background of the events?
This episode raises a lot of questions. But it may take some time to know the answers. If the City hall had asked the BC government before the public hearing if Richmond should consider the plan, the whole controversy would have been avoided before it started.
DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 03
In the last episode, we discussed that the Richmond City Council introduced supervised drug safety facilities in early February, which triggered controversy in the community and once again brought the drug issue back on the table.
On the one hand, those who support it believe that it can save lives, while on the other hand, those who oppose it are worried about the security agents and the promotion of criminal activities.
Today, we will discuss whether those who are worried about the resurgence of the drug problem are justified in their concerns.
Since the decriminalization of drugs in British Columbia, the controversy has not diminished.
Prince George’s RCMP announced in early March that during their operation to crack down on drug dealers in the city, they discovered that prescription drugs similar to those from the provincial government were been diverted to other markets.
The incident raises questions about whether prescription drugs from the province were being diverted to drug dealers for illegal purposes.
PRINCE GEORGE RCMP stated that after a months-long drug investigation, more than 10,000 pills had been seized, including over-the-counter drugs, including prescription drugs morphine and dihydromorphine. The product called Dilaudid is a safe supply of prescription medications.
Police say they have noticed a worrying trend in the number of prescription drugs since drug busts last year, noting that these prescription drugs have been used as a form of currency to purchase more potent illegal street drugs.
They also pointed out that organized criminal groups are actively involved in the safe drug supply system and wholesale of prescription drugs, and some of the prescription drugs are smuggled out of BC and resold. Police say drug criminals are reselling prescription drugs, considerably increasing the profits of organized criminal groups.
Their statement did not explain how they confirmed the seized drugs came from BC Safe Supply Program. It just means that the police found the drug with the prescription packaging altogether. The police could distinguish between safe supply and illegal drugs.
However, police said they could guarantee that some of the drugs appeared to be the safe supply of prescription drugs, and they believed some of the packages had been distributed. People who take prescription drugs, such as morphine or hydromorphone, are selling their drugs in exchange for more potent illegal drugs.
In the statement, police did not explain how they confirmed that the seized drugs came from B.C.’s Safe Drug Supply Program. B.C. Premier David EBY responded at the time that the drugs seized did not come from the provincial government’s prescription drug program.
Although Dr. BONNIE HENRY, the provincial chief health officer, also announced at the beginning of this year that the number of drug overdose deaths hit a record, he pointed out that a small amount of prescription substitute drugs had been diverted and expressed concern that the health department should do more. However, the provincial government did not direct the police to collect relevant statistics.
Police say they have no evidence of widespread diversion of safe drugs in the province.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has instructed her two ministers to arrange an emergency meeting with the British Columbia government to discuss and investigate the Safe Supply Program during a drug bust by the British Columbia RCMP.
Smith said her province has been warning for years that opioids resold in so-called safe drug supply programs could be trafficked across Canada, causing irreparable harm and death in communities across the country. She also pointed out that Alberta has made the safe supply of prescription drugs illegal to prevent this situation from happening. Unfortunately, there is no stopping organized crime groups from illegally transporting drugs into Alberta from other provinces.
She said as serious concerns about the diversion of prescription drugs became more apparent and the issue that these drugs could end up sold in Alberta, she said she has asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services, Mike Ellis, and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Minister Dan Williams has called for an emergency meeting with the ministers of both provinces to stop the flow of these high-potency opioids into the province.
Our store called Division K of the Alberta RCMP and asked them if they had figures on prescription drugs in the province. For example, do they collect BC safe supply of drugs and flow them into Alberta?
Alberta police responded by saying they have no data that they know has seized opioids from B.C Safe Supply Program.
In addition, the Vancouver police also pointed out that since the provincial government implemented the drug decriminalization pilot plan on January 31, 2023, police officers have no longer searched for personal possessions and have not confiscated drugs weighing less than 2.5 grams within the exemption range.
The police said that in the first nine months since decriminalization, they have terminated all searches, and the number of drugs seized by police during the same period has dropped by 76% compared with the average figure of the previous four years. The police have shifted to a caring and compassionate approach to addressing the drug crisis and do not support arresting people solely for drug use or abuse.
The province is applying to Health Canada to decriminalize possession of small amounts of opioids, such as heroin and fentanyl, as well as cumulative amounts of 2.5 grams or less of cocaine, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The relevant reforms took effect on January 31 last year.
Police believe harm reduction strategies combined with prevention, education and appropriate enforcement can reduce the number of lives lost to the supply of toxic illicit drugs.
After the decriminalization of drugs, the BC Nurses Union pointed out that the province’s medical system has issued guidelines to nurses and cannot prevent patients from taking drugs. The incident triggered controversy for the provincial health department to set up a working group to deal with the problem of drug abuse in hospitals. The incident is still developing.
In the next episode, we will study how the provincial government changed its position on drug issues.
DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 04
In the last episode, we discussed the issue of the provincial government’s Safe Prescription Drug Program allegedly ending up in the hands of criminals. The provincial government has had to change its position many times in response to relevant issues. The problem is that this ultimately makes it more difficult for people who are already opposed to the drug epidemic to trust the provincial government’s arguments on the drug issue.
In early March, Prince George’s RCMP said they had found safe prescription drugs during a drug bust. Premier David Eby initially denied that the drugs were from a prescription drug program. However, in the second week, he relaxed his tone, saying that there may be a risk of drug diversion, and asked the BC RCMP to submit evidence, hoping to find out the problem, investigate and deal with it, and no longer denied the police argument, but Point out that prescription drugs often carry a risk of diversion.
Days later, the Provincial RCMP announced that they currently had no evidence of widespread diversion from illegal drug markets in the province or across the country. Jennifer Whiteside, BC’s Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, said there is no evidence to support the widespread diversion of safe drugs in the province into the illegal drug market, nor is there clear evidence of a trend of large numbers of provincial prescription drugs being diverted to the drug dealers.
However, by around early April, the RCMP announced that the safe supply of prescription drugs had been diverted and arrested two suspects. Premier David Eby has asked about the case. He said happy to see the police took action and would continue to encourage them to continue to crack down on the illegal behavior of prescription drug diversion.
As recently as mid-April, the president of the BC Police Chiefs Association and the deputy chief of the VPD, said that about 50 percent of the hydromorphine drugs seized by VPD were from the provincial government’s safe prescription drugs to the hands of drug dealers. The person participating in a safe drug supply program always possesses a significant supply of drugs.
About 20% of hydromorphine prescriptions in B.C. come from the safe supply program, and authorities are concerned that organized crime groups are manufacturing counterfeit opioids.
When interviewed by the media, Premier David Eby emphasized that this is the first time the provincial government has received relevant data from the Vancouver police. He pointed out that the provincial government would like to obtain such information and wanted to trace the source and how they were diverted.
Eby believes that 50% of the hydromorphone diverted to criminals does not come from prescription substitute drugs but from prescription drugs used by the public for pain relief or other purposes. The provincial government needs to stop all diversion activities.
When asked whether the provincial government would consider ending the three-year drug decriminalization pilot program earlier, Eby did not respond directly and said the provincial government would continue to work hard to solve the problem of drug use in hospitals and public places.
Elenore Sturko, BC United Party’s Mental Health and Addictions Critic commentator, said it’s time to end the plan and find another solution.
Because the provincial government has different answers to the drug issue at various times, this may be the reason why the provincial government’s drug policy is difficult to win the trust of those who oppose drugs.
BC United Party MLA Teresa Wat gave an example, saying in the supervised drug facilities in Richmond, there have been many issues with different positions. , he received inconsistent answers five times, which made the people of Richmond unbelievable. The first time was when Vancouver Coastal Health’s medical officer of health Meena Dawar said last year that there was no need to open supervised drug facilities in Vancouver Coastal Health.
However, the same health officer, Councilor Kash Heed, wrote to the City of Richmond on February 5, the same day the city’s Standing Committee introduced the drug facility proposal, expressing his support for a drug facility in Richmond.
This letter is the letter that Richmond Mayor Ma Baoding mentioned earlier that the Coastal Health Authority provided to the city, hoping that the city will promote the plan. In addition, Provincial Health Minister Dean Dean said in an interview before the city council heard public speeches on the first night that there is evidence to prove that the hospital’s supervised drug abuse facilities are used for work. Wat pointed out that on behalf of the provincial government, he supported the relevant motion.
However, Wat said that after the citizens of Richmond and the opposition parties came out to protest, Premier David EBY changed his tune before the vote on the second day, saying that the information he received from the Richmond Health Authority was that Richmond did not need to implement the plan. He said he did not know why the city needs to implement the plan.
Wat also said it was very strange that not a single Chinese-Canadian MLA in BCNDP came out to express their position before the vote, but later came out and said that the Health Bureau did not support the plan. But it was not announced by the Minister of Health.
If the provincial government often takes tentative actions in promoting drug harm reduction policies, changes its stance if they fail, and then launches other experimental plans soon after, would it compromise the trustworthiness of the government’s words?
DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 05
In the last few episodes, we heard about the provincial government policies and guidelines on drug policy, which brought out social problems that had been dormant for some time. In addition to only affecting the Chinese community in Richmond, it also attracted more attention.
Many English-language media have reported that multiple police forces have expressed their concern. As a result, more people may question whether the provincial government’s safe drug policy, drug distribution, decriminalization, destigmatization, and harm reduction strategies are effective.
Against this background, have the opposition parties in the province fulfilled their responsibilities? During the overdose crisis in the past few years, when society was all about how to save lives, how could they put forward their opinions on the province in this flood of public opinion? Doubts about government policies?
In early 2016, BC announced 529 people had died from drug overdose. In April of the same year, the government declared that drug overdose deaths were a medical emergency in the province. At that time, the provincial Liberal Party was in power.
However, the following year, after the provincial election, the government announced that drug overdose deaths were a medical emergency in the province. Under the New Democratic Party, the death toll has risen to 2,511 by 2023.
Kevin Falcon, leader of the BC United Party, formerly the provincial Liberal Party, accepted an exclusive interview with this station earlier. He said that he had expressed to the provincial New Democratic Party on different occasions that the existing drug policy was not feasible, such as the initial prescription drug plan. In this case, the distributors were not professional medical staff but distributed drugs at random places, and some locations were using automatic drug vending machines at the Downtown East side.
Falcon said he knew the Safe Supply Program was being abused by the drug users, and the drug dealers had been selling the drugs to schools. But Premier David Eby has been denying the problem. He said there had been more and more evidence recently, including reports from the RCMP and the BC Auditor General, to prove that drugs funded by the taxpayers flowed into the hands of drug cartels.
Falcon said that as an opposition party, he has been telling the ruling New Democratic Party that drug distribution is not a solution, and decriminalization will only make young people misunderstand drugs as legal products, making prevention and anti-drug education work more difficult.
He said that whether research on a problem is in the right direction, the most important thing is the final result.
Once he can see proof of whether the drug policy is effective, he would be willing to support it. So far, all he has seen is street safety getting worse, drug and firearm crimes intensifying, and the number of drug-related deaths rising. All the evidence shows the opposite.
He believes that because there are only a few months until the next provincial election, he expected that the provincial government would try to deal with problems caused by the wrong drug policies in a low-key manner. If BC United can form office, they will cancel the drug decriminalization plan within 30 days of taking office.
Whether is the proponents or opponents of harm reduction, one of the core issues in dispute is whether the harm reduction policy should reduce the social stigmatization of drug users and decriminalize it.
The policy was launched so that they could feel at ease without worrying about being searched by the police or going to back alleys and hidden places to take drugs and risk overdose originally. The original intention is to save lives.
The public may notice that the provincial government has been making modifications to some of the wording and promotional content of drug users over the past few years. From “drug overdose deaths”, “drug legalization”, and “safe drug injection sites”; modified to “uncontrolled illegal street drugs”, “supervised facilities”, “drug decriminalization” and others The main objective was to minimize the negative impression of substances by the public. In addition, the provincial government posters and advertisements also try to promote that drug addicts are neatly dressed, with stable financial situations, and affable, who have been contributing members of our families or society.
However, an obvious discrepancy between these “non-distinguishable” drug users who are not distinguishable and the realistic image of “visible” drug users generally perceived by the public, especially in the Downtown East Side and around Chinatown. Regardless of whether the Chinese community or not, everyone knows that drug abuse in the Downtown Eastside near Chinatown has caused several serious social problems, including property crimes, violent crimes, a sanitary environment, and economic difficulties for nearby businesses. Moreover, such problems have been here for the past 30 years since the introduction of harm reduction policies. There is no way around it.
No matter how the promotional materials beautify the reality, it would be a challenge to change the image seen by the public. The people who have been opposed to decriminalization felt that the government’s version was just propaganda, less credible and out of touch with reality.
If the public has not seen any significant improvement in the social order, safety, and economic situation and the number of deaths has not dropped, it is not difficult to imagine the drug policy would face strong opposition.
In addition, destigmatization will also conflict with prevention and education. Reducing drug stigma for the sake of saving lives will ultimately lead to more people taking drugs in the long run.
DRUG SPECIAL 3 Eps 06
In the past 5 days, our Radio Station’s Drug Abuse-Floods Reappearance special program has reviewed for listeners the controversy surrounding the transfer of safely prescribed drugs to criminals , Richmond’s supervised consumption site, as well as the explanations from the provincial government and the opposition parties’ response. In today’s final episode, we take a look at the provincial auditor general’s views on two of BC most important harm reduction programs, including overdose prevention and supervised consumption facility services, and the Safer Drug Supply Program. Whether the first phase of the prescription drugs substitution plan is flawless?
Provincial Auditor General Michael Pickup issued a report in mid-April criticizing the Ministry of Mental Health and Addiction and the Ministry of Health for not effectively implementing the two programs to reduce drug-related deaths and injuries.
Dear listeners, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addiction and the Ministry of Health are leading B.C.’s response to the toxic drug emergency, with a focus on prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery.
Pickup found that the guidance from the two ministries did not include minimum service standards to ensure consistent and universal service quality, and did not adequately respond to resistance from local governments. There was also a lack of new program evaluations as the health emergency developed. .
Pickup pointed that the two departments monitor the operation of overdose prevention and supervised consumption facilities, announce implementation status, and adjust funding as needed, but they do not fully address obstacles to implementation, such as resistance from the municipal government, location selection, hiring and challenges related to staff retention. sb
Pickup’s report said that while overdose prevention and supervised consumption spaces provide a safer environment for the public to use drugs under the supervision of health care professionals or harm reduction workers and monitor signs of toxicity. The responsible department has not ensured that similar services are implemented across the province to ensure consistency in the level and quality of care, and let alone keeping up with changes in drug supply.
When it comes to distributing safer prescription drugs, Pickup found that the two departments have made no significant progress in addressing the most challenging barriers, such as access to programs in rural areas, health care providers’ hesitancy to prescribe drugs, and the availability of drugs, whether they meet the requirements and are appropriate, etc.
The audit report said that while the two departments had developed a data collection framework, monitored and adjusted funding methods, and initiated an evaluation process for the program, there was a lack of effective oversight of the province’s initial implementation of safe drug supply regulations because their strategies did not adequately address key implementation barriers, such as a lack of prescribers and limitations in the types of drugs available.
Pickup said the new scheme to distribute safe prescription drugs required transparency with key partners to build trust, but the audit found the department’s approach to collaboration with health authorities and public reporting was inadequate.
The report stresses that the purpose of the Safer Prescription Drug Supply Scheme is to generate evidence and that assessing the evidence will be vital to the scheme’s continuation.
Pickup said high-quality evaluation data is needed to assess the program’s success because some clinicians remain skeptical about the lack of evidence and the politicization of the program.
In addition, the program has faced a lot of criticism since its implementation, including from federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who claimed that drugs in the program had been diverted to other parts of the country.
The auditor report stated that the most common drug, hydromorphone, is not strong enough for fentanyl users and is not available in a smoking form; some providers are even more hesitant to dispense prescription drugs because of concerns about diversion to the illegal market.
The Auditor General’s report seems to reflect the loopholes in the two harm reduction policies. In fact, multiple police departments have recently stated that some of the hydromorphone seized came from safe prescription drugs and distributed by the provincial government.
Listeners should also note that the provincial government has renamed the Safer Drug Supply Program to the Prescription Drug Alternative Program. Is this a possible attempt to beautify the name of the program?
After the Auditor General made criticism, Premier David Eby also acknowledged the findings of the audit report. However, he emphasized that Auditor General did not say that the plan would be stopped or that the plan would not work. He also revealed that although there are challenges, there is still hope for more programs like this in every region across the province. SB
The title of this special episode is Drug Abuse-Flood Reappearance, hoping to attract the attention of the listeners. After the drug problem has been silent for a period of time, a large number of problems seem to have arisen in 2024. What are the reasons? And how should ordinary citizens deal with it? Is there really no way to solve our chronic drug problem?
Don’t forget that one of the four-pillar plans is prevention, and education is a good preventive measure. After violent scenes occurred in drug consumption facility in Richmond, a drug abuse prevention concern group established by city councilors and citizens asked Ministry of Education to add anti-drug messages to primary and secondary school curricula.
Three members of the concern group went to Victoria, the provincial capital, in mid-March to meet with Kelly Sather, chief official of the provincial education department. They suggested that schools must include courses on staying away from drugs and drug harm as compulsory subjects. The group has launched a signature campaign in the hope that with the support of residents, the provincial government was asked to consider their suggestions. Thomas Leung, a member of the concern group, said that Sather had a positive attitude towards the proposal and the group was also satisfied with the outcome of the talks.
At the meeting, members of the concern group mentioned the background of the signature campaign and the demands of more than 8,000 participants, suggested that schools must make courses on staying away from drugs and the harm of drugs a compulsory subject. In addition to primary schools, secondary schools should also have strengthened courses.
Leung said that Sather has a positive attitude towards the suggestions put forward by the concern group. She agreed that the signatures of more than 8,000 residents are a number that cannot be ignored. She said Ministry of Education already has drug prevention courses, but in terms of secondary education, she believes that they should be improved. SB
Furtherore, Sather agreed with the recommendations of the concern group, believing that the current drug epidemic is serious and drug prevention education should be raised to a higher priority. However, she believed that there may be inconsistencies and deficiencies in the implementation of the provincial drug prevention education curriculum for each school district. .
Leung revealed that Sather has promised to conduct an investigation and study the actual implementation of drug abuse prevention education in each schools in the province, as well as the results of the implementation of the curriculum. In order to review the deficiencies, Ministry of Education will work with the School Trustees Association and school districts’Superintendents Association and discuss how to more effectively implement drug prevention education courses in schools in various districts; provided details of the drug prevention education courses determined by the provincial government for reference by the concern group; and continued to maintain open communication and dialogue with the group. SB
Leung emphasized that he would continue to pay attention to the actions of the provincial government and the specific details of the implementation of drug abuse prevention courses.
Although there is still a long way to go to compulsorily include or increase anti-drug messages in primary and secondary school curriculum, at least a step has been taken. We hope that the next generation of children will one day be more aware of the harm of drugs, stay away from drugs, and reduce the number of drug addicts. This the long-term solution to the problem, then floods will never reappear again.
