Ontario’s plan for addiction recovery might be too idealistic to provide practical solutions.
The Ford government recently proposed an omnibus bill, under the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act, that, if ed, will ban the 10 supervised drug consumption sites near schools or child-care centres in Ontario and open addiction recovery facilities in their place. The bill also allows the provincial government to intervene in approving future related services in towns and cities, whereas it was a responsibility previously mediated between municipal and federal governments.
Supervised consumption sites (SCS) are safe and clean spaces where individuals bring their own drugs to ister in the presence of trained staff. The goal of these facilities is to prevent accidental overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases.
A public health study conducted between 2017 and 2019 found a 67 per cent reduction in the overdose mortality rate in Toronto neighbourhoods after the implementation of SCS. Despite the quantitative evidence ing not only the efficacy, but also the necessity of these sites, Ontario appears to be more influenced by public pressures to shut them down.
The generally negative public reception of SCS stems from safety concerns, as many of these sites are located close to spaces for children. But it’s still not fair to sacrifice the safety of one part of the community for another, as closing consumption sites poses immediate risks for those who use them, regardless of whether there are facilities meant to replace them.
Addiction and substance abuse don’t exist in isolation; they are multifaceted problems fueled by various factors aside from drug use itself, such as socioeconomic and mental health factors. Jumping from SCS—which only work to mitigate extreme health risks—to intensive recovery facilities leaves several aspects of addiction unaddressed. The highly ive housing units and on-site staff, proposed by the province sound like thoughtful solutions but they won’t be effective for long-term change. What seems to be the ideal alternative to the provincial government might not be a feasible outcome for drug s, for addiction recovery isn’t a linear path and recovery facilities aren’t a one-and-done situation.
Leaving these issues up to the provincial government’s judgement strips back the level of sensitivity, comion, and intricate understanding that more local governments bring to their issues. Even though exceptions to open SCS exist, they’re unlikely to be approved given the Ontario Health Minister has no plans to municipal requests to the federal level.
With more legislative barriers in place, progress on substance abuse in Canada will be slowed, distancing us from any long-term solutions.
Banning spaces for safer consumption means Ontario will take away resources from people who rely on them. Even though recovery facilities will be a readily available alternative, not everyone will be ready for them. Thus, the Ford government must figure out who this decision is really serving.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.