Myths about Harm Reduction
The following highlighted statements are paraphrased ideas that are currently circulating through the Cowichan Valley. Included are common myths and misconceptions about harm reduction, mis and disinformation about houselessness and addiction, and fear-based responses to perceived threats.
It is understandable that people who feel affected by the situation of addiction and houselessness in the Cowichan Valley are wanting solutions, but when it comes to making demands from government, it is important to first acknowledge our own limitations. Before you speak out, ask yourself if you are an expert through your own work, or have lived experience in the issues that you are speaking out against. Know when to defer to a breadth of experts who can speak to the complex situation of houselessness and addiction. The information and motivations of the self-appointed leaders of the “safety” groups appearing in B.C. need to be carefully scrutinized, as these groups are clearly operating only within the scope of their own interests.
If we want solutions to the existing issues occurring in the York St. and nearby areas, we need to stop spreading ideas that are not only unfounded, but at times designed to deepen the cracks in our community. Stoking the flames of panic as a strategy to ignite action only creates more harm and is unnecessary. We can learn about and acknowledge the solutions that already exist, and be open to their implementation in our community. Policy and responses should be based in research and evidence, as well as the enlistment of our own compassion for human beings. We can also listen to the people living this experience of houselessness and addiction, and advocate for and invoke solutions that include their voice. There are certainly quick fixes to this problem - they are punitive and authoritative and largely work for those who aren’t experiencing them. Effective, compassionate, democratic solutions take time.
“If you don’t agree with us, you are dividing us.”
Having respectful conversations can help to bridge this sense of division. Being open to learning and actively listening to each other can bring concerned parties to a place where there is agreement. Then, ways to reach outcomes that are beneficial for all can be explored.
“This is the NDP government’s fault.”
The NDP government supports restricting public drug use in certain areas, such as parks, schools, and near businesses. In 2023, the NDP ratified Bill 34, which controls public illicit drug usage in a way that is intended to protect children and businesses.
Much like the various lawsuits launched in response to the Covid pandemic mandates, the Harm Reduction Nurses Association launched a lawsuit against the province in response to Bill 34. They are saying this bill “infringes on various Charter rights, including the protection of life, liberty and security, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and protection against discrimination”. (Vancouver Sun, “Drug Users…”, November 12, 2023) The Pivot Legal Society also filed an application under the provincial Constitutional Question Act, challenging the validity of Bill 34.
Consider your understanding of your charter rights, and whether you support protecting those rights. It is reasonable to conclude that all Canadians are afforded protection equally under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bill 34: https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/data%20-%20ldp/Pages/42nd4th/1st_read/PDF/gov34-1.pdf
Harm Reduction Nurses Association statement on Bill 34: https://www.hrna-aiirm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Responding-to-Bill-34-Appeal_HRNA-2024-01-25.pdf
Canadian Drug Policy Coalition press release:https://drugpolicy.ca/for-immediate-release-bc-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-harm-reduction-nurses-association-pauses-coming-into-force-of-bcs-public-drug-consumption-law/#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20BC%20Supreme%20Court,Act%20until%20March%2031%2C%202024.
Vancouver Sun Explains: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/drug-users-have-legal-right-to-use-anywhere-says-bc-harm-reduction-nurses-lawsuit
“Harm reduction doesn’t work.”
Harm reduction is a public health approach that focuses on minimizing consequences associated with certain behviours such as drug use, alcohol consumption and risky sexual practices. It is a program that uses a number of strategies intended to support individuals and communities who are experiencing crises and hardship due to addiction. Keeping people safe until they receive appropriate support is a proven approach that has been observed and studied since at least the 1980s when it was first identified that abstinence from drugs doesn’t work.
One of the key principles of harm reduction is meeting people where they are at and providing non-judgemental support towards a positive outcome. By offering practical strategies and resources, harm reduction programs seek to empower individuals to make safer choices and reduce the negative impact on their health and well-being. There is a large body of research that supports its efficacy.
Efficacy of Safe Consumption Sites: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00300-6/fulltext#%20
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration: https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/harm-reduction
National Institute on Drug Abuse: Advancing Addiction Science: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/harm-reduction
Harm Reduction Journal: https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-017-0178-6
Moms Stop the Harm (many resources here): https://www.momsstoptheharm.com
Harm reduction and adolescents: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528824/
The Principles of Harm Reduction: https://harmreduction.org/about-us/principles-of-harm-reduction/
“Decriminalization is an experiment.”
While decriminalization is new to B.C., it is founded upon a large body of research that supports its efficacy. Strategies that are supported by research need to be given a chance to see if they will work for our province. Effective solutions take time.
Research shows opioid overdose death linked to criminal justice involvement: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871620301629
Washington and Oregon decriminalization not linked to higher overdose rates: https://nyulangone.org/news/decriminalizing-drug-possession-not-linked-higher-overdose-death-rates-oregon-or-washington
Drug Policy Alliance Fact Sheet on Approaches to Decriminalization: https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Approaches_to_Decriminalization_Feb2015_1.pdf
Journal Article: Should Drugs be Decriminalized? Yes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072016/
More about decriminalization in Canada: https://theconversation.com/decriminalizing-drug-use-is-a-necessary-step-but-it-wont-end-the-opioid-overdose-crisis-162497
“Safe[r] supply contributes to more addiction.”
Recent research shows that safer supply in B.C. is saving lives:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/overdose-death-study-1.7080848
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539592400015X
“Naloxone enables addiction.”
The idea that Naloxone enables opioid addiction is an opinion that is unsupported by research. Since Naloxone is a life saving medication, this claim of enabling is like saying insulin enables diabetes, or that beta blockers enable heart disease. Addiction is a health condition that deserves treatment and attention in the same way all other health conditions do.
While Naloxone is not supportive treatment for long term recovery, it has saved countless lives. When someone is repeatedly overdosing, this is because they were unable to recover from their addiction after their life was saved, not because their addiction was enabled. To date, there is no research showing Naloxone enables addiction. There is lots of evidence showing that Naloxone enables living.
Research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449215/
Children and Naloxone: https://drugfree.org/article/does-having-naloxone-in-my-house-enable-my-child-to-use-opioids/
“We need to further stigmatize opioid drugs in the same way we have stigmatized other substances like smoking.”
Why? If Cowichan is really being terrorized by the visibility of addiction, isn’t that deterrent enough? Hate rallies, misinformation, and bullying those you disagree with are symptoms of the existing stigmas attached to opioid addiction. The terrible outcomes of opioid addiction are so obvious that stigmatization comes naturally along with it. In fact, every point of misinformation being addressed in this article is a result of stigma. We need to advocate against stigmatization, not for it.
https://drugpolicy.ca/the-impact-of-stigma-and-avoiding-stigmatizing-language/
“Overdose events take away services from those who really need them.”
This opinion suggests that people who use drugs or have addictions are not worthy of living. Advocating against life-saving care for people dealing with illicit drug addictions reduces their value as human beings. This works against public support for policy and action that would help to end the current crisis. People who are overdosing need life-saving care if we expect them to live.
Most people who use illicit drugs are casual users who don’t develop problematic usage habits. You do not always know who is using illicit drugs that might be toxic. This might include your colleagues, friends, and family.
Literature review on problematic drug use: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2050324520904540
“This problem is ruining Cowichan, which was once nice.”
The situation of houselessness and public drug use in the York St. and nearby areas has been growing for many years. The claim that the York Street community is ruining our entire valley is part of the current moral panic narrative about addiction. With considerations to the economic and housing strains being experienced by many people in our province, it is likely that most people are much more at risk of becoming houseless than having their communities ruined by unhoused people who have addictions.
“School children are terrified and need protecting.”
Part of protecting children is asking them how they feel and then honouring their voice. It might seem counterintuitive sometimes, but allowing teenagers to decide when and how they feel safe teaches them to have agency over how they move through the world, and builds their intuition through experience. Respecting teenaged voices and bringing them into decisions that will affect their daily lives also builds trust between adults and teens, so they will be more likely to ask for help when they need it. When students were allowed off Quamichan campus, leaving was a personal choice, and nobody was forcing them to go anywhere they felt unsafe.
In 2020, SD79 conducted a survey of the Quamichan School population and found that 79% of students felt safe going off school property at lunch, and 93% did NOT want a closed campus. Many families are claiming the campus is closed for reasons of “safety” to do with York St. area inhabitants, but the district did not explain what those specific concerns are. Unless SD79 explicitly states so, claims that Quamichan campus is closed due to safety in the York St. corridor is an unfounded assumption.
York St. corridor report (starts at pg. 15): https://sd79.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Agenda-for-the-February-2-2021-Open-Board-of-Education-Meeting.pdf#page15
Building trust with teenagers: https://www.gottman.com/blog/building-trust-with-teenagers/
“Arriving for my child’s expensive hockey practice at the community centre has become unsafe.”
Community centers are for everyone, and Cowichan’s doesn’t discriminate over who it provides services to. People are not entitled to prioritize their money or extracurricular activities over somebody else’s life.
Did you know that since the late 90s, over 300 coaches across Canada have been charged (how many found but not charged?) with sexual assault against the young athletes in their care? Between 2020-2024, over 80 coaches across Canada were charged with sexual assault against minors, almost exclusively at the local level. Your child is more at risk of harm by their coach than a houseless drug user:
Canadian Olympic CEO advocates for safer sports for youth: https://www.cbc.ca/sports/shattered-trust-david-shoemaker-coc-safe-sport-1.6863905
83 coaches charged with sexual offences against minors: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2167460931803
Petition for sports abuse inquiry tabled at House of Commons: https://www.cbc.ca/sports/petition-inquiry-called-for-safe-sport-canada-1.6797387
“Addicts intentionally place sharps such as needles and razor blades in public areas in order to cause harm.”
There is no evidence to support this claim. Even in the presence of found sharp objects, how do you prove who left it and for what reason? This is an urban legend that vilifies people with addictions and perpetuates “us versus them” thinking.
“Drug users vandalize, steal, leave drug paraphernalia everywhere, and are violent.”
Stereotyping York St. area inhabitants in this way reduces people to their worst behaviours when they are already suffering. Many people with addictions are also dealing with brain injuries that impact their ability to make sound decisions: https://thediscourse.ca/nanaimo/hidden-epidemic-brain-injuries
Research shows that people who have less wealth commit more crimes. However, criminality is not exclusive to people experiencing addiction or houselessness. Housed people also vandalize, steal, use drugs, light buildings on fire, practice violence, and leave their garbage everywhere. It is reasonable to conclude that disparities in privilege combined with attitudes about wealth might further stigmatize those who commit crimes out of necessity or as a result of impaired cognizance due to brain damage, addiction, circumstance, or a combination of these.
“Homeless people don’t want homes.”
This presumptive opinion creates a premise that unhoused people are undeserving of free services and crises intervention “because they don’t want it.”
“Addicts choose to use drugs so they shouldn’t get free services.”
Imagine if we started advocating against life-saving services for people who unecessarily put themselves into a situation that brought them harm, or didn’t take care of their health to a certain standard?
People who are adventurous outdoors, drink alcohol, speed, do not meet certain weight standards, smoke, live a sedentary lifestyle, jay walk, etc. would all qualify to have emergency services and life-saving medication revoked. In our free and democratic country where all people enjoy the protection of the charter, people are entitled to exist as they are and know they will be cared for in an emergency.
Myths Busted
Harm reduction is a valuable and effective public health approach that has been proven to reduce harm and improve health outcomes for all individuals. Condoms, seat belts, alcohol limits at restaurants, designated driver programs (the list goes on) are all harm reduction strategies to keep people safe while engaging in risky behaviours. By providing non-judgemental support, practical strategies and access to healthcare services, harm reduction programs can make a significant impact in preventing the spread of diseases, reducing overdose deaths and supporting individuals in making safer choices for their health. It is important to continue advocating for and implementing harm reduction strategies to address the complex challenges we are witnessing in our community so we can promote better health outcomes for all our community members.