Don't buy the snake oil

ChatBox AI image created by me

I generally stay out of the fray when it comes to commentary on politicking, so much of which is about as reliable as a snake-oil pitch.

But having caught Pierre Poilievre’s promise of addiction treatment for 50,000 Canadians, paid out of the money that will be saved when safe-supply programs are cut, I just can’t let that blatantly misleading statement stand unchallenged.

First, let’s start with safe supply. That’s the term used for when people are able to swap out their completely unregulated opioid-based street drugs for a prescription opioid from a health professional. It’s the most obvious immediate strategy to stop a toxic drug crisis that has killed 50,000+ Canadians – more than a quarter of them in BC - in the decade since the anesthetic fentanyl began dominating the street drug market.

That Poilievre actually thinks there’s enough money in the country’s teeny-weeny safe-supply response to pay for a major expansion of treatment beds and the cost of putting people into them for three, four or more times through – totally predictable with a relapsing health condition – well, that’s the first glaring sign that this promise is pure snake oil.

Here in BC, we have an estimated 100,000-125,000 people with opioid use disorder. A mere 4,600 of them are on the safe-supply program that BC launched at the start of the pandemic. That’s four per cent of the people who could actually benefit from safe supply.

Elsewhere in Canada, 10 other cities launched pilot safer-supply programs during the pandemic, nine of them in Ontario and one in Fredericton, NB. Federal funding ran out for most of them already.

In the few short years since, the mercurial public mood has shifted toward a view of safe supply as having “failed,” even though it actually barely got a start. So good luck grabbing all that big money invested in safe supply into treatment, Mr. Poilievre.

What really gets me with stuff like this is that a politician's comments are rarely challenged by reporters, leaving the public to assume that there really is some massive government investment in safe supply that can be transferred over to treatment.

I figure that whichever party ends up elected at the end of this month, we’ll get a few more treatment beds. That’s a good thing, because we really need them, along with government funding to support people accessing those beds without having to come up with tens of thousands of dollars multiple times to buy their way into a largely private system of care.

But any new beds will barely make a dint on the actual issues that are troubling the public - one of which is an unregulated drug supply managed in the shadows by international drug cartels that is killing their children, grandchildren, employees, partners, siblings and neighbours; and the other being a multi-faceted crisis of poverty, homelessness and mental illness manifesting ever more ferociously on the streets of our communities.

Substance use is definitely layered into that latter problem. But the main driver of the tragedy unfolding on our streets is poverty, mental illness and a housing crisis. Until we deal with those underlying causes, we’re going to be living with the soul-searing visibility of enormous suffering no matter how many treatment beds come into play.

Safe supply is an easy scapegoat for politicians, I suspect because we’ve been convinced over many decades to view the kind of drugs that end up on our streets as evil. BC’s tiny safe supply program was dealt a very hard blow recently when Premier David Eby got fussed about the supply being diverted into the illicit market, and withdrew people’s right to take their prescription drugs in the privacy of their own home.

Picture how that would go for whatever prescription drugs you might be taking, if suddenly you had to visit your local pharmacy twice a day, within their operating hours, to take your heart drugs, for instance, or use your asthma puffer.

Your job, your family time, your recreation activities – all of that would have to fit around getting yourself to the pharmacy twice a day, every day, to swallow your pills or inject your insulin in front of a health professional. How long would it take any of us to be looking for alternatives on the black market to spare us such misery?

Yes, diversion happens. An issue with safe supply is that it decrees what drugs you can swap onto, and fentanyl isn’t one of them. So some people on safe supply sell whatever drug they’ve been given to get the money for the fentanyl that they actually want.

You can look at that as a failure, I suppose. But toxic substances laced with unknown quantities of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs are now the No. 1 cause of death for British Columbians ages 10 to 59, exacting a massive impact on our collective productivity that is second only to cancer. What could possibly be a bigger failure than that?

So now let’s consider treatment as a “cure” for that failure, as Poilievre wants us to do.

First, the obvious: Many of the people dead in the toxic drug crisis weren’t in need of treatment. They were just average people using drugs for fun – not aberrant behaviour in a country where three-quarters of us consume alcohol regularly. They died because a toxic drug supply doesn’t differentiate between whether you’re a first-time user or an “addict.”

Then there’s also this tricky truth: Treatment for any chronic, relapsing condition is a long, hard slog. Whether it’s Type II diabetes, hypertension, or this thing we call addiction, 40-60 per cent of people will relapse after treatment. They will need many passes through treatment to reach a state of recovery, and some will never get there. Getting to where we need to be in terms of quick access to treatment is going to be expensive, just as it is for any other long-term health care interventions.

People using opioids are particularly vulnerable to dying during a relapse, as their tolerance falls significantly after a period of abstinence. Add in that little ongoing problem of a toxic drug supply - any hope of accessing safe supply during a relapse having evaporated under Poilievre’s plan - and it’s clear that expanding treatment alone will not get us out of this crisis.

And one more tricky truth: Treatment for this thing we call addiction is almost completely owned by the private sector – and increasingly, by multinational corporations and private-equity firms interested in consolidating many small community treatment centres into one big entity that will attract investors. (As is happening with veterinary services, lab services, mental health services, employment training, etc.)

Treatment for substance use problems is outside of the Canada Health Act. Private treatment centres are free to set their own rates and their own methods. If they report on their effectiveness at all, the data collection stops the moment a person leaves the centre. A person could relapse within hours of “graduating” and still be counted as a success.

The lack of transparency and absence of meaningful data collection leaves us with scarce knowledge to prove or disprove the effectiveness of any treatment approach. Nobody can actually say what’s working, or what happens once someone leaves a treatment facility in a state of abstinence and walks out into the big world where all their troubles await.

We simply don’t know how many times people relapse, because we don’t measure or track. We don’t know how long an individual stays abstinent after a round of treatment. There are no national standards for treatment. No followup.

So yes, let’s talk treatment. It’s a pillar of any health-care approach, as is access to regulated medications. But please don’t buy the snake oil.