Opponents of supervised consumption sites need to do their research

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 31/01/2025 (218 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A spate of overdoses in the inner city on Sunday from a toxic street drug is a stark example of why Manitoba is in dire need of supervised consumption sites.

Ten people overdosed in the area of Main Street and Logan Avenue Sunday afternoon from a drug known as “brown down,” a mixture of substances that can be potent enough to kill.

The toxicity of Sunday’s batch, which triggered a drug alert, was unusually high and could have resulted in death for some were it not for the immediate intervention of the Mobile Overdose Prevention Site, operated by Sunshine House, as well as members of the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service.

Five of 10 overdoses happened at the mobile prevention site where staff administered naloxone to the victims, which helped reverse the effects of the overdoses. Five other overdoses occurred in the same area, all within a two-hour period. Some victims were treated by fire-paramedic staff.

The upshot: no one died, but they could have, were it not for the immediate intervention of mobile unit staff and paramedics. But it was a close call. Some staff from the mobile unit came in on their day off and the unit was stretched to the limit.

The mobile unit is a valuable resource, but it has limitations.

How much more proof is needed to convince those, including many Conservative politicians, that a permanent supervised consumption site is desperately needed in Winnipeg to help prevent tragic deaths and to connect people struggling with addictions with treatment options?

“It saves lives, gets people connected to the services they need and connects people to the path of recovery,” Addictions Minister Bernadette Smith said earlier this week.

Smith and the NDP government have chosen a location for a supervised consumption site in Point Douglas on the Disraeli Freeway. While the process has been clumsily handled (the province chose the site before consulting with community members), the need for this service is unquestionable.

Evidence from around the world, including in Canada, shows the harm reduction approach not only saves lives but connects people with health care and addictions services some might not otherwise know about or have access to.

The proposed site would come complete with nurses and allied health-care staff and would provide drug users with a safe place to use drugs and to access harm reduction supplies, such as clean pipes and needles to reduce the spread of communicable diseases.

Sadly, some politicians are opposed to the sites, including Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative party. When the Tories were in government from 2016 to 2023, they refused to support the sites, largely for ideological reasons.

In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government passed legislation last year to close 10 supervised consumption sites, even though a report found that doing so would increase overdose deaths and flood hospital emergency rooms with overdose cases.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is a staunch opponent of harm reduction policies, including supervised consumption sites, calling them “drug dens.” It’s unclear how far he would go in banning them should he become prime minister later this year.

Would these politicians prefer the 10 overdose victims in Winnipeg on Sunday had died? Without the mobile unit, some may have. That’s where the rubber meets the road on this issue. Those opposed to supervised consumption sites and who want them banned are literally putting people’s lives at risk.

They argue that they prefer treatment over harm reduction approaches, as if the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not. In fact they work together. Supervised consumption sites help people struggling with addictions get the very treatment Conservative politicians talk about.

Naturally, it’s important to find the right location for the sites. It’s understandable that some people have concerns about operating them near schools or other places frequented by children. That’s why the Manitoba government should have held consultations before submitting a proposed site to Health Canada.

They are holding consultations now, but they put the cart before the horse on how they’re doing it. They made an already difficult situation more challenging than it needed to be.

More than anything now, though, the public needs to get behind supervised consumption sites. They need to educate themselves on the critical benefits they provide.

It’s unfortunate many Conservative politicians in Canada continue to spread misinformation about the sites and use scare tactics to frighten people about them.

If you are opposed to supervised consumption sites, think long and hard about this: would you have preferred some or all of the overdose victims in Winnipeg on Sunday had died? Or would you rather have resources in place to help prevent those potential deaths and help connect people with the health care and treatment services they need?

That is the choice.

tom.brodbeck@freepress.mb.ca

Tom Brodbeck
Columnist

Tom Brodbeck is an award-winning author and columnist with over 30 years experience in print media. He joined the Free Press in 2019. Born and raised in Montreal, Tom graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1993 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics and commerce. Read more about Tom.

Tom provides commentary and analysis on political and related issues at the municipal, provincial and federal level. His columns are built on research and coverage of local events. The Free Press’s editing team reviews Tom’s columns before they are posted online or published in print – part of the Free Press’s tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.