The recent authorization in British Columbia of provision of “safer supply” fentanyl to the youth of the province without any information to or a solicitation of approval from their parents is astonishing and distressing.
It is shocking that Canada’s third most populous province would embark so lightheartedly on a policy with no apparent safeguards at all attached to the distribution of fentanyl to minors, with no attention to alternative points of view, ethical and practical addiction issues, and legitimate concerns about the validity of underage consent. Our country and society are supposed to be engaged in a coherent and conscientious effort to get to grips with the very widespread and extremely dangerous issue of drug abuse.
For the B.C. government to charge ahead in complete secrecy dispensing fentanyl to youths and others on the authority of a nurse is a policy suicide mission. The protocols are silent on the matter of the age at which a young person can receive recreational fentanyl, and there is no indication that such minimum exists in the mind of the BCCSU, whom Mr. Zivo has diligently lobbied for an elaboration on its position.
Nor has there been the least hint of revelation of the potential role of parents and guardians of drug-addicted young people. The protocols are accompanied by an assertion that at the time of their issue there is no evidence to support the initiative or any safety data or established practices, but that a discussion of the absence of such evidence is required for securing the consent of parents. The results of this regrettable absence of evidence is apparently not to consult parents at all.
Even allowing for the fact that in the case of such minors, many are not in touch with their parents, the parents are not together, and the whole idea of any authority to approve the conduct of minors is practically complicated, and sometimes not even relevant—even allowing for all of that, this is outrageous. The whole concept of “safe” fentanyl is rubbish: No fentanyl is safe and the lethality of it depends on both its composition and the size of the dosage, but the idea that it can be provided in safer forms and quantities as a substitute and de-escalation of a larger addiction is nonsense.
B.C. has already flunked the test of trying to reduce addiction by giving addicts smaller quantities of drugs. It has been amply demonstrated that this merely sustains and aggravates the addiction, in addition to servicing the addict’s habit, free at the taxpayers’ expense. No credence whatever can be attached to anything that a drug addict of any age says of his addiction, since the addiction blanks out rational comment and compulsively underestimates the level of dependence. In practice, it is impossible to deny adults the right to make such decisions contrary to their own interests, but there is no justification for preemptively offering young people the same access as adults to the severe compromising of their lives by use of hard drugs.
Certainly, a great many parents are themselves completely unreliable in respect of underage drug addicts, are often not even possible to locate, and are people who, if their opinions could be ascertained, would, as addicts themselves, be unworthy of being taken seriously. But we are as a society still trying to combat drug abuse and it is a tactically disastrous mistake to rule out in advance any role by parents or guardians in trying to combat drug abuse among the youth. Families, even though as an institution they are now under great pressure, are society’s first line of defence in trying to spare young people from the ravages of drug abuse.
This is where we have arrived. The government in its sole authority to fight the importation and distribution of dangerous drugs has transformed itself into a principal distributor of such drugs, ostensibly to curb the overdose crisis and also assist in loosening addiction to them. This is all ghastly theoretical claptrap. There are only two courses available to combat this terrible threat. One is to redouble the war against it, banish it entirely, increase the number of agents trying to find those who create and import it, and launch a holy crusade against it. The alternative is to legalize drugs, make the state the importer and the distributor, require serious treatment for hard drug addicts, and take the revenue from this dreadful industry away from organized crime and into the hands of the governments.
There is precedent for this. At one time we largely abolished alcoholic beverages but thought better of it and their sale is now a huge source of public-sector income. Gambling was severely discouraged, yet there are now casinos everywhere and the governments eagerly take their cut from those. I am in favour of conducting a genuine, not a pretend war on drugs. If the authorities were serious here and in the United States, drug abuse could be drastically reduced.
What is happening in British Columbia is no part of the solution.
