 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University. My name is Archie Kaiser. I'm a professor here, cross-appointed to the Department of Psychiatry. This event is part of our mini law school series of public talks. We invite people into the Weldon building and we ask our faculty to share their perspectives on contemporary legal and policy issues. At the outset, Dalhousie wants to remind us all that this university is located in Mi'kma'i, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi'kma'i. We are all treaty people. Tonight is a special evening for our mini law series. I will be providing a broad overview of some critical developments as we slowly wind down the war on drugs and look towards the future and what that might entail. But it is especially noteworthy for me and for the law school because of the participation of our guest panelists who will no doubt provide you with deeper insights than I will. I'll speak for about a half hour. They'll speak for about a half hour in total and then we'll have the opportunity for questions. I want to introduce our panel briefly. On my immediate right is Cindy McKizak and I asked each of them, by the way, what they were comfortable with my saying. So I didn't pull it out of thin air and all of this is with their approval. So Cindy has been executive director since 2001 of Direction 180. It's a community-based methadone clinic, a program of the Mi'kma'i Friendship Center. It employs a low threshold concept as part of a harm reduction model. Cindy has more than 40 years of personal experience with substance use and recovery and has been a tireless advocate for improving access to services and supports for people who use substances to reduce the risks of, and these are her words, but I share them entirely, of draconian drug policies. Next, we have Gillian Mitz and Gillian is a person who is thoroughly dedicated to a harm reduction approach. She's a member of HandUp, that is the Halifax area network of drug-using people. This is a non-profit that tries to improve the lives of people who use drugs through peer-based support and evidence-based education. She's also a member of PALS, which helps to, don't ask me all the acronyms here, which helps prisoners transition to the community, including people who use drugs. She works with Mainline, which is a harm reduction facility associated with Direction 180. They provide harm reduction through supplies and needle exchanges, and Gillian also supports sex workers and their human rights and the harm reduction model there. She's a member of Stepping Stone. Gillian said that she has many years of lived experience. She truly believes in harm reduction and helping to keep people and the community safe. She says she's excited to give back to the community after she feels that she did damage. She says she's lived on all sides of the tracks. So, that's Gillian, and on my far right we have Doug, or all I tried to take his hat so I could cover my bald head, but he is clean to it. Doug is proud now to have been sober for three years. And a bit, I think, Doug, isn't it? Yes. Doug says that he has been in and out of group homes and the criminal justice system, and these are his words. He did a lot of damage to his life. He just told me that was his reality. Now he's part of the solution, as he says. He's a member of HANDUP as well and PALS, and so he, too, is a person both with lived experience, but also the dedication to pursue the kind of harm reduction options that I'll be talking about tonight. So, I want to say thank you to all of them. And last, but by no means least, although she's not here, you can tell her, I said. So, I want to thank Elizabeth Sanford from the Law School Administration for her usual organizational prowess. I want to thank East Link Community TV and its videographer, Noah Rideout, for helping to make this evening more readily available on East Link Cable, in particular their podium TV. And finally, I want to acknowledge and thank our Dalhousie, YouTube videographer, Bruce Bottomley, there at the rear. So, thank you to all of you in the audience for coming. Thank you to our panelists and thank you to those who have contributed. I feel slightly humbled now because some of my former and current students are here, and I'm sure they'll be thinking next time they come to class, it was so much better with those guests. But that said, what you're going to get tonight is, you know, what is in some way is a garden variety presentation by a law professor, where I try to organize the grand themes and gradually distill it into different topics that are hopefully digestible for you. And I'm to time myself as well. So, the overview is relatively simple. We're going to start looking at the war on drugs and acknowledge this terrible public policy failure. I see the legalization of cannabis as a partial retreat. But in my view, other mindless hostilities also need to cease. I see human rights as driving harm reduction and the proper approach to problematic substance use. I'll be talking about the more recent evolution in Canada of our new and evolving drugs and substances strategy, which foregrounds harm reduction. I'll talk about how our courts have recognized the needs of harm reduction measures. I'll talk about Canada's progress towards human rights in this field and how it cannot be taken for granted because of the ups and downs of government and public policy. I will talk as well because I've been associated with the people on the panel and others about local harm reduction efforts, and I'll refer to some of the local proposals specifically for an overdose prevention sites. I'll extend my analysis to think about the decriminalization of other substances as another public health and human rights promoting measures, and finally, because I'm the typical overambitious prof, I want to extend the analysis even beyond that because I do think that the same health and human rights approaches can be used elsewhere in other justice spheres, and so I decided to take on firearm-related homicide as well. So that's what I'm going to cover. We have gone in some strange directions in the last approximately 100 years. We went from the popular use of a whole range of drugs such as cocaine, toothache drops, and it probably did, and I see some doctors in the audience probably did provide an instantaneous cure for toothaches, but they were widely available. They were medicines, they were consumed recreationally, they were part of commerce, but we decided to take a different direction approximately 1910 to 1920 in Canada. These are American examples, but you get the feeling, some of you are as old as I am and can remember that no less than Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon, I didn't call him anything else, Richard Nixon said that public enemy number one in the United States was drug abuse, and then Nancy Reagan came on with, I think this would work, probably if we lived on another planet, but Nancy said just say no, that was her prescription for dealing with drugs. But what happened was that these kinds of notions fueled militaristic and prohibitionist and eliminationist approach to problematic substance use, and the consensus is uniform that, and I've given you several sources here, that the war on drugs was proven to be ineffective, it resulted in much health related harm, that this was not a battle that could ever be won, that we over relied on the criminal law, we did more harm than good, and as has been said before, we should be joining forces around the world for change. Canada should be finding humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs to people and society. What was one of the problems? It's only one of the problems of war on drugs, well it failed to acknowledge the realities of drug use. People were going to continue using substances irrespective of the criminal law. Drug dependence we now recognize as distinct from drug use is a medical condition requiring appropriate evidence-based treatment, not criminal sanctions, that punitive drug control regimes increase the harms associated with drug use. And I give you the citation here and I'll be talking extensively of making reference to the United Nations General Assembly report of the Special Rapporteur that specifically dealt with a different and a modern approach to controlling and trying to respond to the needs of people with drug use issues. Why were we attracted to the war response? Well this is from Chris Hedges where he talks about war relegating nuanced solutions to dark psychic recesses and we end up with unfortunately bad answers to problems that are otherwise remediable. Chris talks about in his book war making the world sadly understandable and that the moral certitude of the state and wartime is a kind of fundamentalism. It gives us a grasp on reality that unfortunately is entirely misleading. As Laurence LeChan has talked about it we end up embracing the mythic reality of war where words can no longer be relied on and no real communication is possible. We contrast I hope and I think we may be seeing the beginning of this we contrast the more desirable sensory reality of peacetime where in peacetime at least maybe we're going to start to do this. We re-examine the war mentality and we sometimes and I hope we will see soon on a more universal basis we sometimes look at our wartime attitudes and see them as illegitimate and simply stupid and we see events more for what they are. That I hope is part of the recovery from the war on drugs mentality. It's a pretty useful depiction of the misuse of the criminal justice system to control actually this is now legal in Canada you know and that is I think useful to think about the misuse of the criminal law. Well as I mentioned in the title of my talk that I think the legalization of cannabis in Canada is indeed a partial retreat. I'm not saying that we have peace yet but it's a partial retreat. Look at the progress of the legalization of cannabis in Canada. We went from a statement of government intentions to a task force that eventually resulted in a bill that all happened in about 12 months. From April in 2016 then the government announced its attention to legalize and regulate access to cannabis. June 2016 the task force you know canvassed public opinion and expert opinion across Canada and in the task force report they said our recommendations reflect a public health approach to reduce harm and promote health. The task put task force input then you know emphasize principles and values that I think are better guides than the prohibitionist response. The task force talked about protection of public health and safety minimizing harms maximizing benefits compassion for vulnerable members of society and fairness in avoiding disproportionate and unjustified burdens to particular groups. The cannabis act and I'm not going to talk extensively about the candidates cannabis act indeed I'm talking about the aftermath of it but even in its statement of purposes in section seven the statute talks about the need to protect the health of young persons enable licit and deter illicit activities reduce the burden on the criminal justice system provide access to quality controlled supplies and enhance public awareness of health risks. Those same statutory purposes might also be useful as I'll move on shortly to thinking about decriminalization and then possibly also in other domains as well. In Canada you should all be aware that right now we have an evolving drugs and substances strategy consultations are being conducted and the government of Canada has made a commitment to a public health approach comprehensively to dealing with substances they say it's going to be comprehensive collaborative and compassionate they say that they're going to restore harm reduction as a core pillar of Canada's approach to substances beyond cannabis. They are going to address a broad range of legal and now illegal substances they're going to focus on innovative approaches evidence-based policies in progress and reducing stigma that's what they say they're going to do in the CDSS. With respect to harm reduction the CDSS recognizes the importance of streamlining processes for supervised consumption sites of which more a bit later class exemptions for overdose prevention sites of which again we'll be talking and their clear focus on reducing drug related stigma so it's it's heart and its head is in the right place if we're really going to follow it as a nation. Its pillars of prevention treatment and harm reduction and enforcement all make sense as part of an approach which emphasizes a strong evidence base where we're now we say turning towards evidence and away from ideology which is what has driven the war on drugs so the CDSS and I excerpt from it here says that it's going to address root causes of problematic substance use reducing stigma using innovative approaches employing a health lens to regulation and appropriate enforcement supporting indigenous peoples addressing the needs of at-risk populations and grounding substance use policy in evidence again in facts not ideology so why is there this shift represented by the UN general assembly rapporteur by our new legalization efforts with respect to cannabis and with respect to the Canadian evolving drugs strategy. Well I want to think about this from a human rights promoting perspective the special rapporteur from the UN says a human rights approach to drug control must be adopted as a matter of priority to move towards the creation of a humane system that meets its own health related objectives public health measures generally referred to as harm reduction must be adopted the rapporteur said instead of the war on on drugs we should be decreasing the negative consequences of substance use reducing the health and social problems associated with its use among families and societies so we think then about harm reduction what are we talking about well it's an easy concept at least to consider and it makes such perfect sense to me it refers to policies programs and practices that are aimed at reducing drug related risks and harms by advancing the health and human rights of people who use drugs harm reduction interventions aim to reduce the harms associated with the use of psychoactive drugs without necessarily discouraging use because it's going to happen in any event so there are many examples of harm reduction interventions that countries have considered needle and syringe programs which we now have substitute medication prescribing which we have overdose prevention which we are going to be talking about drug consumption rooms or sites route transition interventions outreach and peer education access to justice access to appropriate medical services at least pondering decriminalization and protection against abuses by police and health care providers for people who use drugs and support for political participation so when we think of people who use drugs and we think of the appropriateness indeed in my view the necessity of harm reduction approaches we really should be thinking about it from an international human rights law perspective that speaks powerfully to me and to the united nations and to many countries that are focusing on harm reduction as a central pillar they say it's based on international human rights law so it's a matter of right not just evidence not just good sense a matter of fundamental human rights when we don't protect people's human rights which is the way we have treated drug users in this country for the last 100 years what inevitably has occurred in Canada and elsewhere well first of all when we don't protect people's human rights we create risky environments for people who use drugs we when we have a lack of human rights protection it prevents people from who use drugs from accessing services and treatment when we don't foreground human rights we know that this disproportionately impacts members of vulnerable and marginalized communities people who are already on the edge and we also know that we fail when we fail to foreground human rights protections people who use drugs are often subjected to discrimination in medical settings as well these two cartoons you know help a little bit making the point graphically if you're poor and get caught with drugs it's a crime if you're rich a celebrity you get caught with drugs it's a scandal and you go to rehab and you have a press conference and you say how sorry you are but we also know there has been you know at its inception the war on drugs was discriminatory you know spawned by racial myths and disgusting discriminatory attitudes but it's continued that way in our country and others you know these are American sources but the point they make in most nations is apt that the message of the war has been black and white and as these protesters say a war on us but that goes through other marginalized racialized communities as well so when we think about persons who use drugs and their fundamental human rights let's delve a little bit more deeply into that I first want to talk about the importance of health as a human right I think we have that broad notion in in Canada but it's well grounded in international human rights law indeed as the UN says health is a human right that's indispensable for the exercise of other human rights under international human rights law everyone has the right to enjoy the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the enjoyment of the right to health of all people who use drugs is applicable irrespective of the fact of their drug use they're still humans when they use drugs so you know if you're one of my students you'd be anxiously copying down these international human rights conventions but I'll just mention them for you now because this shows that the world community through the united nations and through treaties that Canada and other nations have signed really does accept the fundamental right to health and the highest attainable standard of health so the universal declaration of human rights says everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for his or her health and well-being including food clothing housing and medical and necessary social services the international convention on economic social and cultural cultural rights says that it is the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health including steps for the prevention treatment and control of diseases and other public health problems the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women repeats the notion here quite appropriately that there's been discrimination against women in the field of health care services and we need to address that as an international human right the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination discrimination talks about the same rights without distinction as to race, color, national or ethnic origin including the right to public health and so on the convention on the rights of the child and we understand that many drug users are indeed children or near children uh recites the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities which includes people with physical and mental and other disabilities talks about gain the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the grounds of disability uh and it also includes the prevention of the discriminatory denial of health care or health care services on the basis of disability and we can think of people who use drugs when they're used problematically as being persons who themselves may have a disability as a result so that's international human rights law I want to talk as well about the reception of our courts to the notion of harm reduction I teach criminal law and procedure some of my students will no doubt groan at this but I teach for example at the cold face of the war on drugs you know how do you get a wiretap you know to uh uh interrupt the conspiracy to traffic you know how do you search the individual when they're detained at a highway check and so on our courts became immersed in the war on drugs but on the other hand although they adopted that mentality in some ways to my regret as somebody who reveres our charter of rights and freedoms on the other hand our courts also stood up at times and I refer specifically to the canada versus phs case in 2011 where our supreme court uh took a unanimous stand against the then government uh that was going to deny the renewal of an exemption for insight you know that was a that is a program in vancouver that provides a whole range of supports for people who use drugs they denied a renewal of the the permit which entitled insight to be exempt from the controlled drugs and substances act so it would have meant the effective closure of it the supreme court of canada said no you are not going to do that and look at some of these quotes from the supreme court they talk about supervised injection sites being used with success to address address health issues associated with injection drug use in other parts of the world they talk about health authorities increasingly recognize that health care for injection drug users cannot amount to a stark choice between abstinence just say no and foregoing health services our supreme court said that traditional criminal law prohibitions have done a little to reduce drug use that risk to injection drug users of death and disease is reduced with harm reduction measures and that insight particularly did not contribute to increase crime rates or increased incidents of public injection or relapse rates in vancouver it was and is perceived favorably or neutrally by the public and it furthers the objectives of public health and safety prohibiting insight which then government the then government was prepared to do was grossly disproportionate to its effects contrary to the principles of fundamental justice under our charter insight save lives its benefits were proven there was no discernible negative impact on public safety and health objectives and the effect of denying the service of insight which is what the failure to provide a renewal of its permit would have involved was grossly disproportionate to any benefit that canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics they said there should be exceptions because those exceptions work and insight worked now the then government and it was the harper government and i'll show you specifically they own it the then government's reaction to the insight case from the supreme court of canada and normally let's be absolutely clear of this under a democratic system ruled by law when the supreme court of canada says you do something and this is the law you do it no matter who you are right that's the whole point of the rule of law the then government introduced almost immediately the respect for communities act and as the huffington post author said how do you defy the highest court in the land you replace the law that spawned the insight case and it's they according to the author it shouted in your face supreme court you try to turn the court's decision on its head because you reject it the canadian nurses association in 2015 said that this approach imposed unnecessary and excessive barriers it was founded on ideology rather than evidence and the canadian nurses were not fooled by that so bill c 65 c 2 it was uh uh then this is from the government's promotion this is i didn't make this up this is what they said they talked about in the insight law as they called it having the potential for great harm in a community and they said our new act is we will raise the bar for applications and an exemption such as insight head would only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances now i don't know what that would be because insight had uh amply proved its exceptional surface circumstances for the supreme court of canada and this is their own news release we are demonstrating how the harper government is acting to promote public health and public safety that's the part that i mentioned from the huffington post where the author said this is in your face supreme court because the supreme court said this does protect public health and safety and this quote is theirs not mine only prime minister harper will continue to combat any growth in the use of illegal drugs we can see other examples from other governments where harm reduction has been second guessed you know where they're not willing to embrace it for example andrew shear who is the current leader of the conservative party of canada in 2017 said and these are all his quotes i really do think we need to move beyond this kind of supervised injection where the government makes it quote unquote as he said safer to inject illicit drugs questioner so you're not in favor of harm reduction you don't approve of supervised injection sites answered by mr shear i don't believe that should be the focus that is the line of demarcation between the prime minister and myself there's nothing there that breaks the cycle of addiction now that last line happens to be entirely contrary to the evidence as accepted by the supreme court and as public health experts acknowledge that it does help people break the cycle of addiction when they want that when they're ready for it and with appropriate services there are other examples of indifference or hostility to harm reduction in ontario now the current premier premier dug for it had previously criticized overdose prevention sites but his own health minister said well actually mr premier the evidence clearly demonstrated that these sites were necessary the government the government responded by capping the number of sites to 21 but health promotion groups had said why are we even doing this review in the first place because you know the news was so good about harm reduction approaches so in ontario existing overdose prevention sites have to reapply and with this arbitrary cap at 21 and as the globe said no one seems quite certain where that number came from because we should have harm reduction sites based upon need not based upon a simple number drawn from thin air i want you to think locally about the struggles to implement the controlled drugs and substances strategy and its harm reduction arm our own Nova Scotia government has an opioid use and overdose framework and it talks about the people who use drugs and it says quite sensibly that they are our young people our family members our neighbors and are most vulnerable and they live beside us in our communities they are part of the human family or they may be part of our family your family but interestingly when i started thinking about public health approaches to problematic drug use in Nova Scotia i also examined the highway fatality statistics since 2014 except 2018 more people have died from opioids than in our highways in Nova Scotia so these these are the most recent statistics on opioid toxicity deaths and you'll note that the numbers hover between approximately 53 and 67 from 2012 to 2017 and as of january 31st 2019 on the Nova Scotia opioid use and overdose strategy stats there have been 49 confirmed 11 probable opioid toxicity deaths in 2018 three probable opioid toxicity deaths in 2019 we look at the deaths on our highway we look at traffic fatalities you see they've gone down you know with more investment in vehicle safety and highway construction you know so that if you recall my statistics from about 2014 on with the exception of 2018 more people died as a result of opioid toxicity than on our highways as a result of motor vehicle collisions what does that tell us well that tells us that we should be concentrated in so far as it's possible on harm reduction methods so there are local efforts to increase the range of services that you've already heard about when i introduced our panelists the current campaign for example to create an overdose prevention site has as a primary goal as an OPS to help prevent and respond to drug overdoses through peer monitoring through rapid intervention they're simpler and they're temporary they're not to supervise consumption sites although they're aligned in terms of values locally an OPS has received encouragement from the chief of police the mayor politicians from effective neighborhoods a coalition of service providers social scientists former and present users lawyers legal academics pro bono dal students liberalized federal regulations and public policy think tanks but you know they're a little bit stymied now i think that it'll still happen as i hope other health harm reduction methods will as well because there is still a stigma surrounding drug use we haven't removed that war mentality there is some opposition by some not all business owners and community members but this notion that we are should put the brakes on harm reduction approaches is really a fairly universal problem the civil society task force on drugs talks about the lack of political will or interest to change punitive approaches due to a variety of reasons some people would say as is noted here by the civil society task force report that the status quo is acceptable and that a shift towards a public health approach may appear permissive and you wouldn't want to do that because although it is permissive in a way and it's not punitive it will save lives that's the side of it that can't be denied so i said i would extend the argument about harm reduction approaches you can see how through the control drugs and substance strategy that the government is developing that harm reduction has been embraced in canada and i hope it will continue to be notwithstanding whatever may happen in in political circles nationally so when we think about harm reduction we should also be thinking then of its extension to decriminalization of other harder drugs so for example in 2018 drug policy still is for many nations an ideological issue rather than a societal topic that can be addressed through evidence and dialogue but 26 countries have adopted a decriminalization model to facilitate access to health services and reduce stigma and prison overcrowding canada can join this course i hope we will as our policy through the canadian drugs and substances strategy evolves i hope that it will recommend decriminalization now decriminalization to define it and more precisely involves not legalization which is what we've done with cannabis but the removal of sanctions under the criminal law and the optional use of possible administrative sanctions that is still legal controls but not with the heavy hand of the criminal law and possible availability of treatment or in some nations and i would say we should embrace this mandate of treatment there are lots of proponents of decriminalization the canadian hiva's legal network talks about the federal government uh decriminalizing activities related to personal drug use and it notes that calls are mounting including among health professionals who have been calling for a public health approach to problematic drug use the toronto medical officer of health says our current approach is not worth working this is less than a year ago we should treat drug use as a public health and social issue not a criminal issue we should call on the federal government to decriminalize possession of all drugs for personal use scale up prevention harm reduction and treatment services and explore options for the legal regulation of all drugs in canada the canadian center on substance use in addiction says the evidence is going to support various approaches to decriminalizations as effective ways to mitigate the harms of substance use especially those harms associated with criminal justice prosecution for simple possession so they say that recognizing substitute substance use as a health rather than a criminal justice issue is a fundamental starting point for reform now unfortunately the current prime minister in february 2018 notwithstanding his support for the cannabis act notwithstanding the current government's support you know for the canada drugs and substances strategy did say decriminalization of harder drugs is not a step that canada is looking at at taking at this point so there is that same sort of stopping point at a clarity of vision and the willingness to consider evidence apparently at the stage of decriminalization i regret that again because i think that the logic of it is is really irresistible but the current government says we are not going that far now their own task force may you know require them to respond let's say i would hope and in some ways it'd be surprised that the task force report doesn't at least think more seriously about decriminalization finally i want to make the point that i mentioned to you you know this whole notion that i see is emerging from the reduction of the war mentality with respect to problematic substance use can be used with respect to other criminal justice issues public health approaches broadly speaking are adaptable to other parts of the justice system for example homicide is a local problem that is amenable to harm reduction our national homicide statistics say that although homicide rates have been declining over the last a few decades there was an uptake in 2009 sorry 2017 the highest is 2009 and we had the highest firearm related homicide rate in in 2017 so in Nova Scotia homicide is 2017 was at its highest point since 2011 and in Canada they maintain statistics of metropolitan census areas Nova Scotia was the seventh highest of 23 cities in the 100 to 500 thousand population range in terms of our homicide rate so you can see homicide in addition to substances you can see homicide the toughest problem in some ways that criminal justice system faces especially firearm related homicides of public health problem as well gun violence from as the Keck School of Medicine says has long been defined by public safety and politics but not by public health and as Nancy Krieger from the Harvard School of Public Health says we in public health count dead people in order to understand how to prevent preventable deaths so you can see homicide even you know at the extreme of criminal violence as a public health problem we can use the same logic and the same approach of considering what the cause is what the evidence is and what you can do to prevent it so you can use core public health activities to interrupt the the transmission of violence you can think about conducting research to gain insight into the causes and assess the impact of interventions you can identify risk factors and no kidding poverty and depression and lack of resilience or other protective factors are relevant to thinking about homicide rates you can develop implement and evaluate interventions to reduce risk factors that eventually lead to homicide and to build resistance on the part of communities and you can institutionalize successful prevention strategies using that same health promoting and human rights promoting lens so I'm done with my part three minutes longer and I promise but you know to conclude that the mentality of the war on drugs while it may be fading has not yet disappeared the cannabis act and the Canadian drugs and substances strategy provides evidence of the capacity of government to move beyond the ideology of prohibition elimination and enforcement and there can be next stages beyond the simple cannabis act as trendy as it has been we can think about extending that analysis as I've mentioned we can think about recognizing the human rights of people who use drugs we can think about them as human beings with inalienable and fundamental human rights we can accept the necessity of relying on evidence as part of a public health and harm reduction approach we can think about expanding supports and services of people who use drugs and we can take that same kind of peacetime mentality further and we can think about the decriminalization of substance substances beyond the current range of legalization and we can revisit perennial criminal justice problems using the public health lens we can think about public health prevention or public health promotion and violence prevention as interlinked and I think that can work but I want us to move beyond simple cannabis legalization to those other domains because I think our society would be safer and I think we'd protect people's human rights better so thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to provide an extended discussion of what I think is the aftermath of what is probably the biggest public policy failure and criminal justice failure of the last hundred years the disastrous war on drugs and thinking about what can occur in peacetime when willing people are willing to consider the evidence in every domain of harmful human activity so thanks so much I now look to hear from Cindy and from Jillian and from Doug and you know they'll present their own unique insights into some of the areas that I've explored and I know that will all be better off hearing that lived experience as well so thank you so this is the second time I had to follow Archie it's tough act to follow so my experience comes from the community and working with people who use substances and that's really important to use that language people that used or used substances we're trying to get away from the language drug addicts junkies all of that kind of language I started this work back in 2001 I joined mainline needle exchange direction 180 opened under the back stairs of the needle exchange and is a program of the mcmack native friendship center and the program was designed as a pilot project for 30 people to provide methadone and it came into being based on the needs of the community because they noticed a shift in the demographic of people who were using substances and at the time there was a very limited program at addictions and mental health and it was very stringent and so if you came late you'd be discharged if you used another substance you'd be discharged and so people were continuously caught up in this revolving door of starting treatment being discharged and not connected so there were physicians and stakeholders and people with lived experience that did a lot of research and a model started in 2001 under the stairs of the needle exchange and within the first six months we had over 80 people and in addition to their substance use with opiates there were other drugs that they were using they had other issues there were housing issues there was hep C HIV you know you know malnutrition lacked connection lacked family support involvement with the criminal justice system so there was a lot and so you know we were a skeleton program we just said okay let's just do what we can do you know as people come through the door and sometimes it's about a pair socks that somebody needs because they've been running the streets for hours and their feet need a pair of dry boots and a pair of socks and sometimes it's about an abscess wound that they've got because they haven't had a safe place to inject sometimes it's about you know their relationship with their partner and the drug use and and the violence and sometimes it's about a bad trick on the street and sometimes it's about grieving the loss of their children and sometimes it's about losing a friend you know so all of those things people come through the door with those things and sometimes they come in cranky and they curse and swear at you and that's okay you know when I when I got up this morning I had a cup of coffee I had a bed and you know I came to work and life was okay I didn't come from the shelter down the street where you know 50 people were sleeping beside me snoring or smelly feet right so you know for me it's about the you know taking into perspective all of those situations where people end up because of the poor policies right you know the abscess wound doesn't get treated because if you go to a merge they're going to label you as drug seeking and so you already know you use drugs you don't need somebody to you know crack you on the knuckles for that right we don't do that to diabetics you know a diabetic that eats you know cream puffs will probably be vandal donuts now um you know we don't take away their insulin you know so our program was built around those pieces those important pieces of making that human connection and understanding that yes sometimes drug use continues but you're going to have your methadone you're going to have an appropriate dose it's not about an arbitrary ceiling you know a lot of programs say maximum dose is 120 you know you might be drug seeking you need more it's about an optimal dose where the person is comfortable people in our program are heroes right um how many of you ever been on a medication some sort have you ever forgotten to take it yeah antibiotics you don't take the whole thing well people in our program travel every day they got to get out of bed wherever that is and travel 365 days of the year to get their treatment and so there's a lot of myths and stigma about opiate treatment and i don't call it substitution therapy because that's labeling i call it opiate assisted treatment and they get up out of bed and they've got to get on a bus sometimes two buses rain wind or shine and come to get their medication so that they're better you know they're already committed um to you know a path of recovery and um you know we we've got to get away from these boxes where you know we expect people to fit into these boxes and and and achieve certain outcomes right you know the bottom line a dead addict cannot get clean right um you know it's it's about being there at whatever place they're in and you know i just um i think about these policies and i think about where we've come direction 180 since the inception right um and the and the barriers we've encountered um and it's funny because you know you look at a community like fairview and and there's a lot a lot of crime and a lot of substance use we know that right uh one of the toughest areas that the HRP you know speak of and um when we went to put an opiate treatment program there we got backlash and the community raised $500,000 in less than a week 400 to buy the host back and gave us 100,000 to get our bus you know the problem or problem or the issue was already in that community but the minute you want to put a solution there all of a sudden everybody's panicking the same thing we're experiencing with the OPS right there's you know injection drug use in the bathrooms of the businesses people are locking their doors oh reach is picking up you know um any anywhere from i don't know it's been about 60,000 needles in the last year through foot patrols and it's there but people don't want the solution oh my god we can't have an overdose prevention site in our community so you know that's so challenging and then you know the whole piece with involvement with the criminal justice system and and um you know how people are forced to suffer their human rights continuously are violated because they're not given their medications they're denied their medications they suffer and withdraw and um you know it those are the things that make my blood boil those are the things when I hear people say those people you know those people they're people we're just all people right and we're all subject to you know experiencing some kind of you know a way of uh dealing with life on life's terms right and and sometimes it becomes problematic and you know so we've got to you know figure out a way to be compassionate and be there for people and um you know uh in the in the last you know 18 plus years of doing this work in the community you know I've come I come up against so so much uh systemic stigma and discrimination you know towards people and um you know I continue to try and fight um but we've had progress too you know um back in 2001 if you you were on methadone and you were with direction 180 you wouldn't get it inside but somebody from uh the Dartmouth program would it was systemic stigma and so you know um there has been some change but we have so much work to do I encourage you all to look at Health Canada's website um on on stigma and they have some great videos there to look at and the language you know the language is so important how we talk about this right and we need to talk about it you know it's not a dirty secret it's a shame when we lose someone to an overdose and their parents are ashamed to identify what it was right um we need to talk about it we need safe supply you know Archie oh Archie three minutes left Archie you know spoke about decriminalization well we need controlled regulated substances we need to be giving people a safe supply we need to undercut um the dealers with this contaminated fentanyl we need to provide people with safe substances anyone here drink alcohol when you go to the pub you can order a beer a glass of whatever it is you go to the liquor store you are assured that what you're consuming is a safe product what a luxury that is if you're a person who chooses to use substances you don't have that assurity you know and you and you're forced to to engage in illegal activities to get it and uh subject to so many other arms so yeah that's my uh I guess my little rent my soapbox for tonight um thank you thank you thanks so much Cindy Jillian we look forward to hearing from you um we're just starting with what Cindy said about um getting rid of the stigma you know someone with lived experience um yes I do work in harm reduction now and I do give a lot back to the community but most importantly is my lived experience um that is how I'm able to understand where these people are coming from these people are me I am these people and I was there meeting a pair of socks and and meeting you know a safe supply at one time so to see how important that is is just phenomenal especially when I see the need on the other side it really is interesting to to be on the other side of coin um I guess Archie was saying how it's just say no um or when you look at it as a disease concept kind of concept you can't just say no um you know you just don't just wake up and want to have a cold one day you don't wake up and want to be sick each day so to be committed to recovery is is in itself it it's difficult it's it's very difficult um and that's where I think we have to look at people as human and see that they do struggle and um basically just giving them that hand along the way is the only way to ensure that they are going to be successful um you know if we fail try and try again you know and that's kind of my whole life story really um yeah I don't really know what else to say as long as um it just needs to be recognized just so that it's not pushed into the underworld where it does put people in in dangerous places and we are losing friends and loved ones and you know I was that person that was in many dangerous situations and not knowing where to turn for help um not long ago I was even promoting um this good Samaritan law you know and asking the HRP they don't even know what that entails so you know we're telling people that you know you should be a good Samaritan and call in overdoses if you see them and you won't be discriminated against and you won't be you know held to this level of law well please don't even know what that entails so I mean for us to be promoting these things I think we need to know what we're telling people and what we're pushing them into um and I just think it's important to have you know everybody's side of the coin I mean obviously you know we all have to live together but um there's probably not somebody in this room that doesn't know another addict or live with another addict or love somebody with an addiction of some kind so um with that in mind just yeah nice people use drugs and be kind so that's about it hi guys um I really don't know where to start um I'm gonna bear with me a bit of a toothache tonight I had to break down and go to the dentist last night and that was a bit of a trip but um doing okay I'm here right now um I'm doing some work with uh with hand up but at first I have to tell a little bit about myself 37 years old I've been in the judicial system in group homes in jails and stuff since I was about 12 so uh I'm really pretty familiar with all the the opposite sides of the track but um I've been sober now for about three years I've been out of custody for five years so I've been doing doing a lot to keep my life and enrich the tracks lately it's a lot of running into a lot of problems and stuff um I'm really new flying too so I probably hear my accent sometimes so over rides here gets me a couple situations here too but um um yeah we need to get get more out there about the harm reduction and stuff because uh people think that this isn't affecting them and it's it's really affecting us all everybody's part of this part of this problem you know since I've been in in Halifax I've been here about two and a half years three years now and since I've been here I've witnessed about five six seven I think seven overdoses people that I've of friends that became friends with me that's a short minute time that's a lot of people died in this community alone and um you know I really don't really have a have a whole lot put together to say right now I deal with really bad anxiety and stuff too um so uh if I get a little overwhelmed sometimes just bear with me but um another thing I wanted to mention was last night when I was at the dental office um I should have went there a week ago but I've been putting it off and putting it off you know a big pimp but anyway I ended up going there and when I when I left they gave me a prescription some pain killers and so I went to the pharmacy right next to the to the office and the dental office and I went in and I've seen a pharmacy pharmacist and I said um it's possible that I can get the prescription filled and she said yeah just hold on a minute no switch took the prescription she said come back in 20 minutes gave her my health coverage and whatnot and then went back 20 minutes later and she said also we're not going to be able to fill your prescription because um you're you're only entitled to one pharmacy because of notes on your files so I was like okay anyway thank you I went on and uh come to think about what it is it's because I'm labeled as a drug seeker now from I've been sober for like almost four years now I'm still aftermath like running into things like that you know it's it's very disheartening and stuff so um there needs to be a lot a lot of these little barriers broke down like even so much as that like I didn't even want to like I probably don't even want to go back to the dentist so I don't even want to deal with anything anybody now for a little bit over that but I guess I'm gonna have to um put my big boy pants on and go back I guess but uh but um yeah um really don't have a whole lot more to say but uh with the OPS the overdose prevention site I think it's uh very important that we have that here in the community um there's a lot of people fighting for it and I'm sure there's people fighting against it but um you know these there's people dying in the streets you know I mean in the corners and in the curbs and alleyways and stuff like that man it's it's it's as real as it's going to get and uh you know I just don't see any more bodies myself and I don't want to lose any more friends and uh yeah so thanks for hearing thanks for having me well thank you most sincerely to Cindy, Gillian and Doug um and no to my students the next class won't be as good uh but uh uh you can see what they add you know to what can otherwise be quite an abstract discussion even when we consider that this is a fundamental human rights issue so I thank you warmly for coming to the law school so now we have the time to uh ask questions I've uh tried to assist uh audiences in many different settings with the question asking part so please feel free to ask a question put it to me I will repeat it so that it can be uh recorded you can direct it to me any panel member or all of us as the case may be the only thing I would ask if you're going to ask questions is to do it succinctly and don't make a speech just ask the question and we'll try to respond so do you have any questions yes um what would you say would be the ideal uh harm reduction framework for the benefit of the recording the question is what would be the ideal harm reduction framework well personally I would have thought you should embrace everything in the revenue of harm reduction options that I mentioned earlier that they all have their place and different people have a different need so we're already following in some ways harm reduction options we started with um you know the availability of medication for people you know we have you know programs to provide needles with social supports and so on I'd like to see everything done because I think that would reduce deaths and promote public health but I look to members of the panel for each of you to say you know what would be the ideal harm reduction framework yeah um yeah so for for me I think of a a dear friend an advocate Raffy Ballin from Ontario who passed away uh from Inoverdose a couple of years ago and he believed that um harm reduction was just the result of poor drug policy and that it should be uh we shouldn't even you know be talking about harm reduction we should be just having equitable access to all health services whatever that looks like for everybody and um you know that's that that would be my my uh dream that we had you know equitable access to all services for people who need substances across the country and I think peer-run programs are important as well because they add hope to the community and they make people part of the process what she said pretty much what they said yeah I wanted to add anything though um just uh myself just uh the OPS site right now is it was a dream for me but because I've seen like I said I've been here a short amount of time and I've seen quite a lot of people die so I'd really like to see them get get it that up my because you probably help thanks so much and the other questions yes so the question is for the recording um to Jillian you know discuss your role and how you participate in those various programs uh well I work with the needle exchange program so obviously I do a lot of reach work I go out on site um collecting dirties um giving out clean supplies to people in need of them um not waiting for people to come in and get the supplies um we actually go right out in the community to you know hotspots you I guess you guys would call them some pretty pretty neighborhoods and you know we offer the services that they probably wouldn't go get unless you were right there at the time you know sometimes I get a wait for somebody to do a hit before they come outside actually get their supplies you know which they probably like to say would not access um hand up is um people from every different level of recovery from people that are currently using the people who are in recovery um and it's many different ways of advocating the communities such as the OPS um it's just doing gigatons like this and just offering them hope in your addiction and showing them that there is a better way and I guess pals is obviously offering people um hope because I mean getting out of jail these people have nothing you know and and it's just it's just being practical I mean I expect people to get out with nothing and then you build off of that is it's not um it's raising our expectations for people and giving them a chance to start over and Jillian that you also mentioned you're involved with stepping stone yeah yeah I'm a member of stepping stone I don't work with stepping stone um but I find it I think it's very important um it works with sex workers in the community um especially for a woman as drug addict in the community it leads you into situations you probably wouldn't be in otherwise um and it helps reduce violence to women um putting them in high-risk situations in sexual situations thanks Julian the other questions yes I don't know to okay on the left go ahead that's you okay um just a question of Julian and Doug what made you stop or say I'm going to get out of this the question is then uh for Jillian and Doug you know what made you decide to uh stop get out of it I was tired there's no other reason I was just tired there wasn't too many you know they say jails institutions and death and all I have left was death so and I've been pretty close to that a couple times so yeah that's just the way and I didn't have much to go on um I didn't you know I had lost everybody everything and I'm still slowly getting that back so yeah it was it was just tired the human spirit I guess the human condition what about you well for me I think it was a quote from Carl Carl Young um the fear of not changing had to become greater than the fear of changing so once that finally happened and I guess I I kind of yeah I stayed the same it was just too scary I knew the outcome of it it was either going to be a grave or well that's that's what it would have been so that's insanity yeah thank you thank you there was a question to his left yes yeah I'm wondering if you mentioned something about uh folks coming to you in this program uh who may have lost their children and I'm thinking of the child welfare system and um if you could um just kind of think would you in fact possibly work with someone in the child welfare system and work with their so-called social worker or whoever it is and how receptive is that system towards working with you okay the question is then for people who are involved with child protection issues how can one support them in order to try to preserve their custodial relationship what can be done to assist people so uh we do we do work with cps um however it's um you know there are not a lot of external supports for women you're not allowed by but there are not a lot of external supports for women so you know if you're on opiate and you go to the iwk uh right away workers are involved and you know we don't have you know it's it's sort of that three strike mentality where you have so much time to get your your act together and then you lose right and so we need to be more creative and innovative about providing you know other supports because we know we're only perpetuating the problem when children are taken away from their biological mother and so we have to do a better job um if this was a urine and this happens not but i mean if this was a urine that's you know primarily what we use to determine whether or not somebody is a good parent and that's not a good practice right and i think you know we need to be more creative and you know finding other ways we pay more to foster parents to look after children than we do parents to raise their children so there's a lot of systemic barriers and um you know you have it's a system you have good workers and you have workers that you know uh are are are not as flexible or or understanding so question yes uh the fact right there is a wall there oh where do you see the potential other or research into better in what other opposition from our community so the question is what do you see by way of opposition and potential for more effective treatment so for for child welfare i see you know facilities where um mums have access to their children for a longer period of time that is supportive and leads to trauma and foreign care and other you know other supports um you know i think that that would be helpful um it's just so cut and dry and um i i i know you know having worked and witnessed you know some some of our women who've lost like four or five children you know over the years you know maybe this time i'll i'll get it right maybe this time it'll be okay and the fear and hiding pregnancies and the risks that that imposes it's you know the imbalance the imbalance for women who use substances that are you know pregnant it's just so so wide and even in the screening you know if i were to use substances when i was pregnant and i went for a screening they would ask me do you use cocaine do you use uh uh opiates do you use uh benzodiazepine do you use they would ask me questions about all of those drugs already i'm not feeling comfortable and saying that i use those drugs what we should be doing is saying you know how are you aware that if you do use cocaine that we have this available are you aware that you're if you're opiate dependent we have this available changing the power dynamic in the conversation so that people feel more comfortable um to to disclose and come forward more sugar more sugar and salt yeah of course you have to respect the safety and care of children i'm not denying that but yeah the questions i think i saw your hand before i'm just wondering if any i don't ever hear any strategies leveled about taking the government or government institutions or police forces to court to sue them for these human rights violations that i've heard mentioned on a number of occasions and it seems to me that over time there's been this sustained marketing campaign paid for by the government for the last hundred years to support a war on folks so isn't it time that we kind of turned it on its head and started suing the people who are uh because i don't think i don't think that the they're going to come quietly when especially when you see the comments from a guy like sheer and part of the problem well i can respond not too expansively um i think the insight case from the supreme court of canada is a good example of where the legal system has provided a backstop for the protection of human rights um and harm reduction measures that's relatively rare um the war on drugs has been waged quite relentlessly the courts have bought into it uh and it has resulted in harms to our legal system at a number of levels it's alienated vulnerable members of the public uh from our legal system it's permitted uh discriminatory and abusive police practices um it has unfortunately resulted in the adoption by the courts of the notions of the war on drugs as being essential you know to to be uh pursued relentlessly so our courts have distorted you know fundamental principles of law and our constitution as part of the war on drugs so i don't mean to be pessimistic and as a lawyer i hate to be someone who um you know doesn't hold out some promise for the law uh in the general area of this broad field of public policy but unfortunately the legal system has been used in the other direction it's it's been used to penalize it's been used to uh imprison and uh um it's been because the government has the right to make these policies and it's only in extraordinary instances such as insight where there's a cause of action that's challenging challengeable under the constitution or otherwise so the suing option is attractive for me i can assure you but that said um what you really need is enlightened public policy uh where our political leaders go further than the ones i gave you examples of tonight and where it would be nice to think that it was a non-partisan issue and uh where the governments at all levels would say well we want to stop this war we want to protect people we want to save lives we want to ensure that our human rights are protected i wish the legal system were configured differently and politicians really were prepared to exercise the leadership but we can see we're bumping up against those limits i gave you the example of the reaction to insight i gave you the example of the current prime minister saying we're not going to look at the criminalization i gave you the example of uh uh mr sheer saying that you know he uh is opposed to some current harm reduction uh measures and uh prime minister trudeau is saying that we're not going to consider the criminalization so i would like to ride on this wagon but i'm afraid that that's not the place we need to think about law reform uh we need to think about influencing uh politicians as citizens you know so that the rights of people won't be abused any longer so that's why not too expansive answer but i don't know about the rest of you do you have any kind of feeling about the usefulness of the legal system you know to kind of combat the harms of the war on drugs you've been a victim of it i think yeah and i think people are so beat down at this point and when they get to the point that their liberties are being violated they're already so beat down and they are so taken of their self-confidence that you know for them to fight back at that point it's almost you know useless and and it's it's they just don't have the energy left in them so you know maybe if we were to make a change before then people would be able to to do so but it's getting to the point where they're just so beat down by the time it gets to that point that there's you know people are just going along with it i don't get anything to add you you've been a victim of the war on drugs i have no comment the police aren't watching no i i know i don't know which really don't know what to say but okay fear a lot of fear a lot of fear fair enough yes what way does that allow for the attention to exist because they're the government can say somebody else is taking care of it so therefore we do not have to so in some ways we've allowed them to advocate their responsibility around that so how do we hold the tension of recognizing the support and yet that allows some application of responsibility okay i i understand the question to be uh related to the importance of peer support and recognition of its value but the inherent undesirability of letting government just say we're going to abandon conventional medical and social supports and give it all over the social support so how do you balance that out mr gilwood yeah i think results speak for itself it's undeniable you know the results that it's not it's not all pure work that's being done that's just something new that's i've seen in recent years that's been the student delivering results i think it's a collaboration of everything again i really don't have anything to say because i had to answer to that one i think i i don't really don't have an answer for that you know i wish i did have you all have you benefited from peer support oh definitely okay okay definitely benefited from peer support for sure every day you know it's uh the groundwork yeah every day and i'm going to be involved with with this you know you should see the people and you're right there's so many things that people are doing that the government should be doing you're absolutely right yeah yeah i understand i understand that part too yeah and it is because a lot of times i think well well they're going to take care of it anyway they got it already so we don't have to deal with but we don't really have it we're just holding it together by the strings now you know what i mean and then there's people dying so it's like they brush it out to us but there's people dying when we're trying to hold it together it seems and you know people that are right about in the book or people that have lived it you know there's really no comparison when it comes to experience so we need both peer support plus conventional medical and social support okay and the other questions please yes well to me you know the question is you know how do we position the importance of human rights in how do we you know make that the guiding principle of my money if i'm not over translating you know well i think it's it's vital for people to understand that when we talk about harm reduction when we talk about the kind of supports that we've been mentioning for people who use drugs to understand that it's a human right it's not just compassionate it's not just a good thing to do but that because people are entitled to the highest attainable standard of health and well-being uh that it's a right that everybody has not just me an old you know white middle class guy you know but people you know who come from different straight up society and particularly as we're talking about tonight people who use drugs where it may be problematic that they too are entitled you know to the protections that we all should have and so i think you you do it you know hit it on the head and i wish government were more guided by that you know the the notion that it is a fundamental human right that we're talking about that belongs to everyone in the human community one thing i do regret notwithstanding my extolling the virtues of the evolving candidate drugs and substance strategy is that they don't foreground human rights advancement and protection as prominently as they should a view that i've expressed to them but you know that is a missing piece all the other pieces look good you know the treatment and evidence-based and harm reduction and so on but i think bringing it back to the rights foundation is something that may make governments be a little bit more um you know vigilant uh and energetic and the other questions yes my question is kind of a two fold and it may be directed more towards the same thing um i'm wondering what the differences between a rehabilitation center and lps and why would someone choose one over the other so the question is the rehab centers versus opiate you know the substance opiate or yes i'm sorry yeah i didn't quite get the overdose prevention uh so that what would be the benefits of each step yeah so um with an overdose prevention site that's a place a serral state supportive environment for somebody who is currently using substances actively using and maybe has not expressed a desire to stop or you know hasn't or may never stop and so you provide them with sterile equipment and support and you know allow them to consume their substances in a supportive environment to make sure that they don't overdose um the provision of the supplies prevents them from contracting hepatitis c or hiv or other uh infections um and you know maybe at some point they may say hey i'd like to consider treatments and so you're there and you can provide that link for them and help them with you know other other issues that they identify as a priority it's self-directed and it's supportive whereas rehabilitation most often is is surrendering your agency over yourself usually um you know it's odd i could have cancer and i could go in for chemo and i could go outside and have a cigarette and the doctor would probably frown on that and tell me cindy that's not a good thing to do but he wouldn't stop my treatment when you go into a rehabilitation a detox long-term treatment if you smoke cigarettes um you are discharged if you want to have yourself you know um what a novel idea um they they will uh discharge you for for you know hiding your telephone or those kinds of things so rehabilitation quite often you lose agency over yourself and you have to surrender to this idea that i'm going to be abstinent i'm going to refrain from everything and so that's that's hard you know to to make that that switch some people can do it um it makes it hard to go back into the real world yeah keeping that type of lifestyle yeah some people can um but most can't and you know repeat you know visits and you know how do you feel about um an effort to do something when you fail you know when you don't have success you don't you beat yourself up and so then it's you know you're then again at a risk of a fatal overdose because your tolerance has changed once again it didn't work for me you know so there it's not an idea for everyone the idea of a low barrier or no barrier approach takes people as they are and understands that you're just a human who needs something at the time so if we go back to the human rights promoting the approach just take people the way they are and ask what they need to try to support them and that may be an OPS for people who continue to use an overdose prevention site where they can use safely or maybe rehabilitation when they're willing to enable you know to as Cindy says surrender their agency in order to take on the rehabilitation other questions yes thank you so much for all of you really to pick out this issue and especially from myself to Professor Archie you know it's up to the team to see lawmakers get involved with this otherwise I would prefer you know such a depressing issue this issue and it's a big problem for Canadian people but it's also wanted to bring it up that it's international yes yes it's just last year alone in Mexico 100,000 people died because of the violence related to drugs I think I think that as a society that somehow we important this drug somehow they make it here we we should feel responsible for some parts of this deaths this is just Mexico talking about the rest of the South America so so you know but however the sense that I'm getting from your talk is that it's actually doesn't look very rosy the future well of this problem and so I have two questions one is like um so so I think that talking to politicians is the main imposing on politicians some changes that are any kind of well the question is how do you influence the process of change and I think the answer has to be that as a community we citizens you know have to try to influence government to evolve beyond prohibition because that imposes the burden of criminality on the whole population and so yes something has to change at that level of government leadership and it comes from people like us any other questions sorry and I think the answer is research is increasingly being done it was sort of fattish in the late 60s it's coming back now and there is a recognition among some researchers that there are appropriate uses that are beneficial of some banned substances that can help people but I heard you say yes as well there is a task group that is looking at safe supply of MDMA cocaine and opiates so looking at you know the importation of more pharmacy grade heroin and pilot projects so we're working it's a national group that is going to make recommendations for the federal government I know that we are approaching that time when sadly from my perspective because you've been a great class I think that we have to wind up so I'm being given that signal so I want to thank all of you again for coming tonight and participating so earnestly and I particularly want to thank our panelists Cindy Gillian and Doug you know for making this real for all of us so