People are dying because they are consuming drugs of unknown purity and strength. That is, you don’t know what’s in your drugs and you don’t know how strong the drugs are. There are simple solutions to these problems. Best solution is to provide a safe supply. Second best solution have safe consumption sites and drug testing available.

You may call that a solution, but that sounds like continuing the problem (that is, substance abuse).

I think we both agree that safe consumption sites reduce harm. The evidence backs that up.

But if the government is saying there’s not enough money to continue, what’s the next step?

The reasons aren’t our concern. Obviously poverty, housing and employment are things we can help people with, but beyond that it’s up to the individual user. As I pointed out the majority of people using drugs will quit on their own in time.

You know what they say: “Prevention is better than cure.”

If we don’t know why people are abusing drugs, we will never be able to fix this problem.

It may be true that some people will simply stop using drugs in their own time (not likely with opioids), the rest die. “Saving them” merely prolongs their inevitable death if they aren’t provided with medical treatment options.

Would it surprise you to learn that faith based recovery has a success rate of about 5 to 10%? There are other programs that have slightly better results but in general abstinence based treatment is a dismal failure.

I don’t support “faith based recovery”, simply due to the fact that there are more effective options (like MAT). However, getting 1 out of 10 people to sober up is much better than enabling continued consumption through “safe alcohol consumption sites”, right?

The first step has to be keeping people alive. The second step is building a relationship with the people so that they feel comfortable accepting help. This can be done through overdose prevention centres and drug testing facilities. The third step would be medication assisted treatment, but not everyone will be receptive to the idea. Therefore we repeat step one and step two.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. I do agree!

My original question, however, has not been addressed. With the limited funds available, what approach would be most effective to tackle this problem?

Is it spending more on safe consumption sites? More on treatments like MAT? More on social programs that keep people from becoming addicts in the first place?

I think where the government is at right now, they can only pick one, or they can blend all three with less than adequate support for it all. What do we choose?

On a side note. Why is BC in such bad shape? Safe consumption programs in other cities have saved millions of dollars, further allowing those programs to continue. If BC hasn’t been able to keep the program sustainable, why not??