Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

In Vancouver this week, there have been 36 overdoses in people who inject heroin. There were no deaths.

In Montreal, in May, there was a similar spate of 28 overdoses among heroin users. There were 16 deaths.

In both cases, the drug being sold as heroin was actually fentanyl, a painkiller that's many times more powerful.

Story continues below advertisement

So why, given the identical circumstances, was the fatality rate zero in Vancouver, and almost 60 per cent in Montreal?

The simple answer is: Supervised injection. And naloxone.

Vancouver is home to Insite, a supervised injection site that has operated for more than a decade.

Almost all the overdoses in the past week occurred at Insite. The drugs users who ODed were revived by trained nurses. They use a drug called naloxone, which can reverse an overdose of opioids.

In Vancouver, first responders like paramedics, police and firefighters carry naloxone, and B.C. has a take-home naloxone program so regular users can carry the overdose antidote and help their friends. (The drug works much like an Epipen: You jab a syringe into someone suffering an overdose.)

In Montreal, there is no supervised injection site. In that city, heroin users – and there are many – shoot up in the streets (or in their homes or offices – because let's not forget that drug abuse is not limited to those living on the streets).

There are, however, plans for three supervised injection sites in Montreal. But talk is not action, and the delays have proven deadly, and will continue to do so.

Story continues below advertisement

In Quebec, naloxone is approved only for use in hospital emergency rooms and for a handful of advanced care paramedics. There is no take-home naloxone program, and while the drug can be prescribed, it is not covered by the provincial drug plan, so it is unaffordable.

One would be hard pressed to come up with a more eloquent example of the benefits of harm reduction, or a more compelling illustration of how sensible, evidence-based policy-making can mean the difference between life and death.

There is nothing glamorous about addiction to heroin, methadone or other commonly abused street drugs, and nothing romantic about a life dedicated to chasing the next fix.

Nor should be proud of the fact that there are thousands of injection drug users on the streets of our cities, big and small.

But these are, for a host of complex reasons, realities that we have to deal with. And, as use and abuse of opioids becomes more common, and prices of street drugs fall, they are realities we need to come to grips with, and quickly.

The so-called war on drugs, driven by the notion that we can prosecute away illnesses like addiction and scare people straight, and make all the social ills related to the drug trade magically disappear, has failed miserably.

Story continues below advertisement

What the evidence shows, and what practitioners of public health know from experience, is that harm reduction works.

The concept is simple: If people are going to practise risky activities (like injecting heroin), the first thing we need to do is minimize the harm they do to themselves and others.

So you provide clean needles, give them a safe place to inject, in some cases provide them with the drug.

By doing so, you prevent the transmission of disease (needle sharing is an efficient way of transmitting HIV, Hepatitis C and more), you make the streets safer and more pleasant, and you prevent (and treat) overdoses rather than leave people do die gruesome deaths in back alleys.

And then can you start the conversation about treatment and rehabilitation, something that almost never happens when you criminalize behaviour.

Mitigating self-harm is a much better use of tax dollars than jailing someone.

Story continues below advertisement

Similarly, making drugs like naloxone widely available may make us squeamish, but the reality is they are needed and useful.

Are there really that many overdoses that we should make every first responder carry the antidote, and make it available over the counter or, as some suggest, make it a routine prescription whenever people (including your grandmother) get prescribed powerful opioid painkillers?

The short answer to those questions is "yes." There is very little downside to making the treatment widely available.

In Canada, we have, for many years, been having philosophical how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-pinhead type discussions about the best way to deal with injection drug users (and drug users more generally).

Enough of the dithering, already. We know that harm reduction measures work.

We shouldn't need to arrival of another deadly batch of street drugs to remind us of the grim toll of inaction.

Story continues below advertisement

André Picard is The Globe's public health columnist.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies