Commentary
Alberta took a recovery-oriented approach to dealing with the opioid addiction crisis under Premier Jason Kenney’s leadership in 2019. By
2021, over 8,000 addiction treatment spaces had been funded.
Harm reduction advocates insisted Kenney’s approach was misguided and said lives would be lost over his refusal to embrace drug dispensaries as B.C. had. B.C.’s decriminalization strategy
turned into a catastrophe and the government was forced to reverse it in early 2024. Meanwhile, in Alberta,
fatal opioid overdoses fell by 55 percent in 2024. The investment in recovery centres has paid off.
Now under Premier Danielle Smith, the plan is to take things a step further with what is being called
“compassionate intervention” centres. Under the compassionate care legislation, a family member, guardian, doctor, or police officer can request a mandatory treatment order for an addict if it’s felt the addict may harm themselves or others. This ability to restrain a person already exists under the
Mental Health Act but it now has a more addiction-specific legislative basis. Two new centres are to be built at an estimated price of $180 million.
Rather than being greeted with optimism, however,
the centres are being decried by harm reduction advocates as jails. They claim this approach never works with addicts, yet they can’t point to examples where this approach to addiction has been tried. There are cases where court orders are issued mandating treatment and there are countries with drug courts, but secured centres created solely for the enforced treatment of addicts haven’t been created anywhere. The opposition to Smith’s initiative appears to be more ideologically motivated than with the interest of addicts and their families in mind.
Spectres are being raised of a government snatching people from the streets and incarcerating them if they have been caught using drugs. Alberta has thousands of addicts, and these centres will only offer 300 beds. It’s unlikely anybody will be committed to them on a whim. Mandatory treatment is considered a last resort when every other approach has been tried. The process will involve professional guidance, and just as it is with mental health-care centres, steps are taken to ensure that the patient is at risk of harm if they are left to their own devices.
Anybody who has travelled to urban centres has seen the decimation of the addiction epidemic. Late-stage addicts are stooped over and passed out on the streets. They are sickly, thin, often covered in sores, and in mental distress. It’s ridiculous to think that an addict who has reached such a stage in their disease could or would suddenly willingly embrace the concept of entering rehab. Once an addict has hit the street stage, the destination is often the morgue. It is truly inhumane to leave somebody on the streets in that condition, yet this is exactly what harm reduction advocates say we must do.
In an ideal world, an addict chooses to enter a rehabilitation program. Even when voluntarily attending a rehabilitation program,
nearly 50% of addicts will relapse. However, that’s still much better than the odds of recovery without participating in a program. Success rates with involuntary rehabilitation would likely be even lower, but we can’t measure this as it hasn’t been tried yet. We do know the chances of rehabilitation for an opioid addict once they hit the street level are nearly zero if they don’t somehow get into a program.
People say an addict must “hit bottom” before choosing rehab. What the bottom may be is different for different people. For some it’s a divorce, for some it’s bankruptcy or an impaired driving conviction. For opioid addicts on the street, they have progressed beyond any of those measures, and bottom for them is usually a fatal overdose.
Getting an addict off the street, detoxed under supervision, cleaned up, and fed for a couple of weeks could offer them the mental clarity they need to choose to go further with rehabilitation. They can’t make that choice when fogged under the influence.
The cost is high, but what is the cost of leaving an addict on the streets?
How many times will they end up in the hospital before a fatal overdose? How many arrests for stealing to support their addiction? Social services are overwhelmed. We are already paying to support them on a dead-end path.
At the same time, as the government
faces allegations regarding procurement practices related to Alberta Health Services, it needs to ensure transparency and the integrity within the system. New addiction centres will require careful planning and oversight.
Imagine having a loved one addicted and living on the streets. Thousands of families are dealing with this and are out of options. Even if the odds are long with a mandatory treatment program, such a program offers infinitely more hope than doing nothing.
True harm reduction advocates should be applauding the Alberta initiative. Instead, many are blinded by enablement ideology.
As long as an addict is still drawing breath there is hope for them, and compulsory treatment centres can provide that hope.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
