Last updated : December 16, 2024
Safe supply programs were created in an attempt to battle an ongoing worldwide health crisis—death by drug overdose. The theory behind these programs is that by supplying drug addicts with paraphernalia, a short-term remedy for opioid overdose—most often distributed in the form of Narcan, and, even, testing illicit drugs—before they are ingested with no threat of repercussion—lives will be spared. These types of programs started back in the 80s when AIDS was spreading rampantly through the drug community due to the sharing of needles.
The programs have branched out from there. Unfortunately, however, so has the drug epidemic.
How are the programs working out?
Since the early 2000s, over one million people have lost their lives due to drug overdose when combining the death toll of both the United States and Canada.
Initially, the deaths linked strongly to prescription opioids, such as oxycodone, for example. Physicians were quick to prescribe them unaware of the high potential of addiction. Sadly, some patients found themselves addicted after one round of post-surgery pain medication. This led to searching out doctors who would continue the prescriptions for their “pain.” Which, truth be told, was the onslaught of withdrawal symptoms when forced to do without. Dishonest physicians even set up practices with the intent to market to addicts further adding to the growing crisis.
Of course, once word hit the streets that it was available on the black market, things spiraled out of control. According to information published by the Public Health Crisis from Acute Drug Toxicity Fatalities, however, over the past decade, prescription opioids are no longer the largest threat in Canada. The threat stems from a substance now found hidden in every drug smuggled into countries around the world.
The game changer
Fentanyl has claimed the spot as Canada’s main cause of death by overdose. That’s also the case in the United States. Moreover, we suspect it wouldn’t take much research to prove that is the case worldwide.
Over 20 years have passed now and the jury is still out on whether or not the overall impact of safe supply is making a positive impact on the overdose crisis here in America. What we do know is that the number of overdose deaths has tripled since then in both the United States and Canada. Moreover, according to reports coming out of Canada, safe supply programs are having little effect. The number of Canadian citizens dying by overdose continues to rise.
Judging from the death toll, it’s safe to assume that is the case here in the States as well.
Point, counterpoint
Drug abuse in this country is destroying families at a horrifying rate. Moreover, even our economy suffers. The homeless and, often, addicted are flooding the city streets causing businesses to close. Crime is rising. Families are moving away from their homes. All part of the drug crisis gripping our nation. We must address these problems and the sooner the better!
Our federal government stands behind the theory of harm reduction and, in 2022, showed support by distributing $30 million to harm reduction programs scattered across the nation. A large part of the population maintains that safe supply and other harm reduction programs keep addicts alive and, therefore, are worthy of receiving aid. After all, we should, by now, expect that drug use is a normal part of human existence.
If that is the case, it’s only fitting that society does its best to help these people survive and not die. No matter if they live on the streets in a hopeless existence, other than, perhaps, justifying the time spent nodding from the safe heroin or amped up on the meth they shot up in the new syringe. What about the fact that being homeless, addicted to drugs, and constantly in danger of being attacked violently is not a very fulfilling existence?
Advocates are, often, quick to point out that not all addicts live on the street though. People have diverse relationships with drug use. Not all consumption patterns are the same. Lots of people don’t fall into the “problematic” category like those living homeless on the streets. They have families and jobs and stuff.
It seems the main philosophy behind harm reduction is to provide those suffering from addiction with the needed resources to get them where they want to go in a way that is comfortable for them. Even if that’s just showing up for the free stuff so they can stay alive.
We’re rooting they choose drug-free
Safe supply and other harm reduction programs may keep some alive and that’s a plus. However, if the person chooses to remain in the circumstances in which they currently reside because they have accepted their fate, is that helping? Even if they are high-functioning addicts, at the moment, and live a “normal” life, that is likely not to always be the case.
Suppose one day, they succumb to the “just this once” urge and show up at work under the influence. What if they cause an accident there because they aren’t thinking clearly? Or stumble into a piece of equipment or a ladder with someone on it? It would be horrible if the decision resulted in someone being catastrophically injured or, worse, dying as a result.
What if we stop giving people things that help them use drugs “safely?”
Instead, let’s keep showing up and encouraging them to change the lives they’re living for their best life. What if we figure out ways to spend the millions of federal dollars on places for homeless people to live? We could focus on helping them re-enter society by giving them tools to use in the future enabling them to live a drug-free life.
Sure, it may “sound too good to be true,” but, hey, we’re running out of options. We say it’s worth a try.
