Taxpayer Funded Drugs – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

When one speaks of “safety of supply” one means drugs financed by the taxpayer. A recent investigative article in the National Post sparked lively debate in the House of Commons.

But as Noam Chomsky wrote, “The wise way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the range of acceptable opinions, but allow for very lively debate within that range.”

In Canada, there is a heated debate about a “safe supply” of tax-funded drugs. Conservatives argue that there is no “safe supply” of hard drugs. This means that even if heroin and cocaine were legal and regulated, they would still be “unsafe”.

The other side of the debate is completely beside themselves. The facts are not on their side. But, as is characteristic of the Liberal Party of Canada and many representatives of the modern left, civil dissent and reasoned criticism are symptoms of “hate”.

Which is a shame. Because both sides are wrong and right. Liberals are right in not criminalizing drugs and decriminalizing so-called “hard” drugs. But making the taxpayer pay for it is wrong.

Furthermore, given the historical incompetence of the Trudeau administration, Canadians have every reason to be skeptical that such a major policy change – the decriminalization of “hard” drugs – will not backfire in unexpected ways.

In fact, the Post’s latest article shows what those unintended consequences might be. Conservatives are right when they say that tax-financed drugs don’t work under the guise of “safety of supply.”

But their solution is to escalate the drug war. They believe, like liberals, that they can change demand by influencing supply.

The real solution, of course, is legalization.

How Taxpayer-Funded Drugs Caused the Opioid Crisis

The story usually goes in reverse. Canada has an opioid crisis, so the government has launched a safe supply program to counteract this crisis. But it appears that taxpayer-funded drugs have given the opioid crisis a boost.

The National Post notes the same reality as others, like Aaron Gunn.

The taxpayer funded opioid (hydromorphone) is too weak for opioid addicts. Users sell these weak opioids to younger adults, even minors, for cash. They then use the money to buy fentanyl.

The police call this “distraction”.

Distraction has been a big problem for the government when it comes to cannabis. Whether it was Harper’s attorneys who argued that medical patients were “diverting” their supplies to the black market. Or whether allowing Canadians to grow at home might help as a “distraction.”

But this concern only applies to harmless, non-toxic cannabis. When it comes to harder drugs like opioids, public health has rebranded distraction. They call it “compassionate sharing” and “mutual aid.”

Many doctors rightly describe this as “outrageous”. But most of them are too scared to speak. Most doctors and other experts were given pseudonyms in the National Post to protect their identities.

That is, to protect them from the so-called “compassionate” left-wing activists who protest against ideas they personally disapprove of.

Yet this diversion of tax-funded drugs to the underground market has caused opioid prices to plummet.

The National Post cites several doctors who are on the front lines of the opioid crisis. You know for sure that the street price of an 8 mg hydromorphone tablet has dropped significantly.

In London, Ontario, where the government was first testing safe supply, an 8 mg pill went from $20 to $2.

You can buy a pill for as little as 25 cents at places like Downtown Vancouver Eastside. And while 8 mg is nothing for a hardcore addict, for the little kid they sell the taxpayer-funded drugs to, that 8 mg has the potential to become addictive.

This creates a cycle in which tax-funded drugs or “safety of supply” create a new generation of opioid addicts.

“Compassionate” politics is poisonous

(Maggie MacPherson/CBC)

Safe Supply protocols sometimes require the user to provide a urine test to prove they are using these taxpayer-funded drugs and not just reselling them. But not every location with “safe supply” requires this.

Some of them – to remove “stigma” – require no proof at all. Just walk in and say you overdosed on fentanyl in the last month and you can get up to 30 tablets of 8mg hydromorphone.

But even if they have to prove they have hydromorphone in their system, addicts take one or two, enough to pass the drug test, and sell the rest.

Of course, this position is considered “patriarchal”. The idea that drug users are rational and use fentanyl because they like it is probably white supremacy.

The radical left “compassionate” activists never consider the logic of human action. Given this group’s association with failed economic ideas, this is not surprising.

Consider what Ludwig von Mises wrote:

Human action is always necessarily rational. The term “rational action” is therefore pleonastic and should be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of an action, the terms “rational” and “irrational” are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate goal of an action is always the gratification of some desire of the actor.

Opioid addicts may have “irrational” goals. Like buying and consuming fentanyl on the street. But their modus operandi — going to safe supplies, lying to the donor, selling to children, and then using the money to buy fentanyl — is perfectly rational.

With that in mind, it also makes sense to abandon bedbug-infested single occupancy and live on the streets – especially near “safe care” locations. That’s exactly what we see.

Taxpayer-funded hard drug dispensaries provide the capital street dwellers use to keep the fentanyl market afloat.

There is no doubt about these facts. Only someone unfamiliar with the basics of economics could argue otherwise. Which brings us to Justin Trudeau…

Taxpayer-Funded Drugs vs. Cannabis

On decriminalizing hard drugs, Justin Trudeau said:

I think decriminalization is a bad idea because it doesn’t help to make it more difficult for young people to access it, and it doesn’t help to stop the black market and criminal organizations from profiting from it.

Oh wait a minute. My mistake. He said about cannabis. Adding, “That’s why I believe in oversight and regulation that actually provides the protections of public safety and minors that we need.” And in the meantime, it’s still illegal.”

So why is this true for cannabis but not for drugs like heroin or cocaine?

Like so many other questions Canadians have asked Justin and his government, we have yet to receive a definitive answer. Chances are we never will.

Justin will point to the $1 billion being spent on homelessness as if taxpayer money could solve complex social problems.

He also says, “It’s a fact” that harm reduction has saved lives. But characteristic of his administration, the focus is on one group in the short term, rather than all groups in the long term.

In other words, Justin Trudeau failed to consider the unintended consequences of taxpayer-funded drug supplies. He just looks at narrowly focused results and declares it a win.

While 8 mg opioid pills are rife on the streets for less than $2 a pop, Health Canada is warning Canadians about “copycats” of edible cannabis that exceed the public health limit of 10 mg THC.

The alternative to tax-financed drugs

Credit: Trey Patric Helten

As previously mentioned, the way this country has presented taxpayer-funded drugs or “safety of supply” has been dishonest.

And that is typical of democratic governments. Take gay marriage for example. You were either for it or against it. There was no “Hey, maybe the state shouldn’t care about marriage certificates?” possibility.

The opioid crisis has killed over 35,000 Canadians. The theme needs to be more nuanced than, “Secure care is good and compassionate, and those who disagree with us are full of hatred and likely fascist.”

Or, on the other side of the debate, “Drugs are bad, mmkay? Unless it involves alcohol.”

Apparently, as with alcohol and cannabis bans, legalization is the solution.

The reasons Justin Trudeau wanted legal cannabis apply here. And unlike cannabis, young people’s addiction to opioids is a far bigger problem than teenagers, who may be smoking more marijuana than is good for them.

And because of the “safe supply” propaganda, many teens think that 8mg of hydromorphone is safe and ok. Meanwhile, Health Canada is stepping up propaganda about the supposed harms of cannabis.

I don’t know about you, but given only the two options, I’d rather see teens getting their hands on “copycat” cannabis edibles than these taxpayer-funded hard drugs.

Are we ready for legalization?

Of course, one could argue that Canadians are not ready for heroin legalization. In fact, our narratives of drugs and drug use are still shaped by drug war-era thinking.

But at the end of the day, there is no other option. We will never have a drug free society. That’s not even a desirable goal. Who would want a world without coffee, cannabis or morphine?

To solve the opioid crisis, you have to get to the bottom of people’s preferences. Why do some people prefer to live on the streets and use drugs irresponsibly than have a home and a career and use drugs responsibly?

“They have a brain disease and cannot make rational decisions,” say both major political parties.

This belief will not solve the opioid crisis. But it will stimulate a lively debate about “safety of supply”. A delivery that Big Pharma and your tax dollars offer you.