What if it was your brother? Why we can’t abandon supervised consumption sites
When Jason Luan, the UCP government’s Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions announced a freeze on funding for supervised consumption sites, my heart stopped for a minute. As a social worker, I know all too well what happens when people struggling with addiction are not supported. They face greater risk of homelessness, violence, crime, and death. Since January 1, 2016 2,183 individuals have died from an accidental opioid related poisoning in Alberta.
This week, Jason Luan responded to questions about the future of supervised consumption sites by saying “they just keep talking about keeping you alive, reviving you from an overdose. Then we’ll do it again tomorrow and we’ll do it 10 times the day after tomorrow…”. This callous and uncaring way of speaking about people’s lives shook me. I just kept thinking “what if this was your brother, would you still think it isn’t worth saving a life just because you might be lucky enough to save it again?”
In exasperation, I reached out to Dr. Bonnie Larson the lead of the Street CCRED Collaborative. Her words captured exactly what I was thinking. “How do they think folks even get to detox and treatment without harm reduction?!” Dr. Larson said. “I am sitting at Alpha House this very minute, caring for people who have had overdoses in the past few days, they are recovering while I write them a prescription for opioid agonist therapy and fill out medical forms for treatment programs!”
The Alberta Opioid Response Surveillance Report released last month demonstrated that while tragically, lives are still being lost as a result of the opioid crisis in Alberta, fewer lives were lost because of supports offered by the former NDP government, of which safe consumption sites are a key part.


