Harm Reduction Advocates Accused of Gaslighting Canadians on Safe Supply Diversion
For years, harm reduction activists championed "safer supply" programs as experimental initiatives providing free recreational drugs to addicts, claiming there were no significant downsides. When media reports surfaced about these pharmaceuticals being diverted to black markets, advocates dismissed such concerns as right-wing disinformation. Now, with undeniable evidence of widespread diversion emerging and government support waning, some activists are rewriting history, asserting they had always warned about this problem.
The Shifting Narrative on Drug Diversion
As safer supply programs face increasing scrutiny, a revisionist narrative has emerged among certain harm reduction proponents. Progressive writer Alex Passey recently argued in a Winnipeg Free Press op-ed that safe supply advocates had been vocal about diversion risks from the beginning, warning that users would sell their prescribed drugs to obtain stronger substances. This perspective was echoed in a CBC documentary last fall, where leading safer supply advocates claimed they had raised alarms about diversion but were ignored.
However, this narrative contradicts the historical record. Early safer supply research barely acknowledged diversion, with harm reduction activists consistently downplaying or positively framing the issue. When Health Canada published preliminary reports on pilot programs in 2022, diversion was mentioned only once as an "additional challenge," suggesting it was minor. Concurrent studies either ignored diversion or portrayed it as rare "compassionate sharing" and "mutual aid" based on patient testimony.
The Mechanics of Diversion
To understand why diversion occurs, one must examine the pharmacological realities of safer supply programs. These initiatives primarily distribute hydromorphone, a pharmaceutical opioid as potent as heroin. Yet many opioid addicts use fentanyl, which is approximately fifty times stronger than heroin. Consequently, even substantial hydromorphone doses often fail to produce the desired effects, leading users to sell or trade their prescriptions for illicit fentanyl—an outcome that critics argue was easily predictable.
In 2022, the National Safer Supply Community of Practice (now the Substance Use Health Network) published guidance advising healthcare providers to "appreciate the benefits of diverting prescribed medications" and avoid portraying the illegal practice as harmful. This document, titled "Reframing Diversion for Health Care Providers," exemplifies how diversion was systematically minimized in official harm reduction literature.
Mounting Evidence and Changing Perspectives
As evidence of widespread safer supply diversion becomes indisputable and government support for these experiments collapses, the activist response has shifted dramatically. Some now argue that the solution to diversion problems is expanding safer supply programs rather than reconsidering their fundamental premises. This position has sparked intense debate about accountability and transparency in addiction policy.
The controversy highlights broader questions about harm reduction strategies and their implementation. Critics argue that dismissing legitimate concerns about diversion has undermined public trust and delayed necessary policy adjustments. Meanwhile, proponents maintain that safer supply programs remain essential tools for reducing overdose deaths, despite implementation challenges.
This evolving situation continues to shape Canada's approach to addiction treatment, with implications for healthcare providers, policymakers, and communities affected by the ongoing opioid crisis. The debate over safer supply diversion represents a critical moment in evaluating harm reduction strategies and their real-world consequences.
