Regardless of these facts, drug policy reform is being blamed for these outcomes. (File photo: Michael Longmire/Unsplash)
Ottawa’s recent rejection of the City of Toronto’s request to decriminalize possession of controlled drugs is the latest shoe to drop in the resurgence of conservative anti-drug sentiment sweeping the country, and backtracking on reforms achieved in other jurisdictions.
The announcement, citing concern for public safety, follows much the same script as that of the British Columbia government, which — after decriminalizing in 2023 — recently retreated to ban use in public places due to complaints of rampant drug use and continuing high rates of overdose.
In early April, the state of Oregon went further, recriminalizing drug possession, replacing small fines with probation and up to six months in prison. The state was forced to backtrack on decriminalization measures that were passed in 2020 due to backlash over spiking overdoses during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
Continued deaths due to drug use is all the evidence required to curb reform, despite the fact that these spikes occurred mostly during the pandemic.
Research shows that the pandemic exacerbated many of the factors underlying the drug crisis. Health disparities and a lack of resources in underserved communities, social isolation, economic burden, stress, a lack of access to treatment and barriers to care all contribute to acute health effects of drug dependence.
Regardless of these facts, drug policy reform is being blamed for these outcomes.
It’s still all about the politics, of course
In Ontario, predictably, the Ford government’s position on Toronto’s proposal is staunch opposition. Yet there is a sense of new momentum in the same old rhetoric: because drug users continue to die and use drugs in public places, presumably this means the experts and bleeding-heart liberals who supported reform have been soundly proven wrong.
Most concerning, whereas conservatives and liberals may differ in their emphasis on punishment or treatment as solutions to drug problems, neither type of government seems prepared to fully implement a public health approach to substance use. That would mean addressing health disparities and deeper causes of substance use disorders, such as social inequality and social dislocation in Canadian society.
No North American jurisdiction has been able to achieve this, despite the depth of knowledge and increasingly articulate demonstration of progressive public servants. Bureaucrats and politicians speak the language used by experts and other knowledgeable observers, who in turn inform the public of the need for harm reduction and more comprehensive, meaningful social policy reform. Logically, this requires commitment to decriminalization to shift the emphasis from punishing addicts to rehabilitating them.
Increasingly, the discourse has gone further in establishing the need for more coherent public health policies addressing the root causes of addiction. To that end, important progress has been squandered by apparent bewilderment that addicts are still dying in large numbers, despite (and now because of) decriminalization measures that were never claimed to solve the problem of addiction, but rather to reduce known harms of criminalizing drugs.
Decriminalizing drugs is not intended to be a solution to drug problems. Rather, it is a critical first step that’s necessary, but not sufficient, for replacing prohibition with a public health approach.
Although Canada has made this work for regulating cannabis, it still has far to go to implement a more progressive public health approach to other drugs. The dangers of drug use stem not so much from psychoactive substances themselves, but from the toxic and unsafe drug supply that is the result of criminalization. But most of these substances continue to be treated as dangerous enough to ban.
Yet there is scant consideration of the societal and legal circumstances and conditions that make drugs dangerous because they happen to be used in harmful ways by certain people. Whereas opiates, like alcohol, may have higher risk of overdose and adverse health effects due to physical dependence, all drugs can be misused with risk to health and public safety.
Addiction and public health
Decriminalizing drugs can make them safer, but not always, and reduce some harms of using drugs. What cannot be resolved entirely by decriminalization are the societal conditions that make substance use attractive enough to override considerations of concern for the self or others.
Addiction thrives on hopelessness and feelings of despair, abandonment and disconnection, which are caused by homelessness, unemployment and discrimination, among other social problems. Despite the range of local addiction support services and treatment options called for in support of decriminalization proposals, so far decriminalization efforts have failed to go beyond half measures to implement a full array of integrated resources.
Further off course yet, there has been little indication of meaningful commitment to addressing deeper structural root causes of addiction in North American society. Canada’s putative commitment to a public health approach has fared no better than in Oregon.
None of these jurisdictions have gone far enough to remedy the real causes of drug problems. The fate of Portugal’s successful run as a global leader in tackling addiction, as opposed to punishing addicts, helps to clarify new lessons being learned in North America.
Adopted over 20 years ago, decriminalization measures in Portugal have been implemented more successfully because its social safety net is far more comprehensive and better integrated with the criminal justice system. In recent years, as cuts to funding decimated rehabilitation programs, rising rates of overdose soon followed, demonstrating that decriminalization is not a silver bullet; if you do that and nothing else, things will get worse.
Put otherwise, half measures are ineffective. Until we are prepared to go all in to solve the problem, people who use drugs will keep dying unnecessarily because we have not afforded them real hope.
Sadly, this is news to no one. Not just experts. The Liberal government went on the record years ago by recognizing that decriminalizing drug use is not a panacea. Rather than committing to the next step, then and now, the necessary first step has been taken off the table.
How about try giving it more time?
Another lesson learned in Portugal, that evidently has not been resonating here in North American society, is that the kind of change required takes time. Now that decriminalization has been tried (and deemed a failure) in B.C. and Oregon, the reigning logic appears to be that going back to doing nothing makes more sense than doing something.
Despite great patience shown during a century of misery inflicted on drug users in Canadian society, trying something new is scary. Cue the same old moral panic scapegoating addicts as dangerous people who those in charge prefer should not be seen.
Decriminalizing drugs can’t eliminate people’s struggles with addiction. To work well, it requires a considerable level of investment, similar to what has historically been devoted to policing and imprisonment of addicts. Redistributing resources to support the integration of services, housing and employment for more people is not, and has never been, prioritized over punishing drug users.
Until that shift occurs, we will keep falling back on failed policies consistent with a war-on-drugs mentality that has now prevailed for 50 years against all logic. In the meantime, be prepared for a new wave of antiquated arguments proclaiming more liberal policies a failure.
Commitment to half measures creates more problems than it solves.
Andrew Hathaway, Professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Guelph
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
