Yet another controversy has arisen over the province’s decision to decriminalize possession of illicit drugs.
When the policy was introduced in January, adults were allowed to possess up to 2.5 grams of fentanyl, crack cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA, commonly known as Ecstasy, without facing prosecution.
But the government cited only three locations where consumption was banned — schools and licensed child-care facilities, airports, and Coast Guard vessels and helicopters.
That led to immediate blow-back from municipalities who wanted a wider range of public places ruled off limits.
In October the province yielded to this pressure, and tabled legislation to ban consumption within six metres of all building entrances and bus stops; within 15 metres of playgrounds, spray and wading pools and skate parks; and in parks, beaches and sports fields.
That retreat left the impression that this far-reaching new policy had not been thought through.
Now the controversy has taken a further turn.
Lisa Lapointe, the province’s chief coroner, has blasted the government for what she calls a decision driven more by politics than evidence.
She notes that under current policy, illicit drug users may only receive safe drugs if they have a physician’s prescription.
But of an estimated 225,000 people in B.C. who are using illicit drugs, fewer than 5,000 a month have prescriptions. The shortage of family physicians plays a part in this.
That means the remaining users must buy their drugs on the street, where supplies are often contaminated with fentanyl and other lethal additives.
But when Lapointe advocated removing the need for a prescription, her suggestion brought withering replies from both Premier David Eby and Jennifer Whiteside, the minister of mental health and addictions, .
“I cannot accept the primary recommendations of this report to pursue a non-prescriber model of safer supply,” was Whiteside’s response.
Digging in further, when a group called the Drug User Liberation Front tried to help addicts by buying, testing and distributing a safe supply, Eby called their behaviour illegal, terminated their contract and two of the staff were arrested.
So what is the government’s proposal to help the more than 200,000 people who must buy unsafe drugs on the street? No credible answer had been offered.
Yet there are in fact ways to deal with this issue. Currently, cannabis is sold at private outlets, but under government regulations. These stipulate the minimum age for buyers, and ensure the product meets license requirements as to purity, quantity and so on.
Government inspectors can enter these premises at any time and ensure that the regulations are being followed.
A similar model could be used for the sale of illicit drugs, though with greatly enhanced powers of oversight. Customers would have to be interviewed by trained staff and be able to show that they understand the risks associated with overdose, and have a supply of naloxone.
And federal assistance would be required to permit dispensing without a prescription.
A distinction might be needed between experienced drug users and people who are basically experimenting. The former know what they are doing, and would require less guidance.
The latter would need a more hands-on approach, perhaps with carefully titrated doses, and some form of mandatory training aimed at weaning them off drugs.
The risks of adopting a non-prescription model are real — it might open the door even further to illicit drug use. Yet that door was already opened when the province decriminalized possession.
Morally speaking, it comes down to this. With overdose deaths now the leading cause of death among British Columbians aged 10 to 59, the government cannot simply leave users to the mercies of the black market.
Eby and Whiteside must face this reality. Having stepped off the bridge, it is too late to turn a blind eye to what follows.
