Harm-reduction activists could find common ground with critics if they kept an open mind

If activists spent less time bullying opponents and more time listening to them, they’d find many areas of agreement

The recovery-oriented PROSPER Symposium was held on May 30 and protested by harm reduction activists.

By Rahim Mohamed

A star-studded symposium on recovery-oriented drug policy went off without a hitch in Vancouver on Thursday, despite efforts by several prominent harm-reduction activists to sabotage the event. 

Harm-reduction activists oppose the enforcement of criminal laws prohibiting public drug use and the prioritization of treatment and recovery-oriented policies.

Yet, if these activists had attended the symposium rather than undermining it, they likely would have found they agreed with many of the speakers’ points.

The PROSPER symposium — which stands for Policy Roundtable on Substance Prevention, Education, and Recovery — was moved to a new venue after organizers caught wind of credible threats to the event’s security. Audio recordings leaked before the symposium depicted activists brainstorming ways to disrupt the proceedings, including by dyeing fountains red, shouting down speakers and honking horns. 

The last-minute venue change didn’t stop a handful of protestors affiliated with the group Moms Stop the Harm from picketing the event. Some held photographs of lost loved ones. Others commented to on-location news crews at various points throughout the day. 

Fortunately, the event’s logistical challenges didn’t dissuade three high-profile elected officials — Official Opposition leader and leader of BC United Kevin Falcon, BC Conservative Party leader John Rustad and Port Coquitlam Mayor Brad West — from attending the conference.

Even though PROSPER was a success, one can’t help but lament the missed opportunity for the event’s organizers and detractors to come together to find common ground on sensible drug policy. 

Speaker after speaker reaffirmed the importance of the 4 Pillars approach to combating drug addiction and dependence. This approach says harm reduction plays an important role in drug policy, but also recognizes the importance of three other pillars: treatment, prevention and enforcement. 

No speakers denied the importance of harm reduction; they only said they would like to see a more balanced approach that is recovery-oriented and sees harm reduction as one tool among many.

One presenter, Dr. Launette Rieb of the University of British Columbia, shared findings from her research on the efficacy of supervised opioid agonist therapy, which involves using medications such as Suboxone to help patients taper their opioid use. 

While some harm-reduction activists have been critical of providers of this therapy, many others advocate for its use and want to expand access to it. Why boycott a presentation about this treatment option?

Dr. Pouya Azar, a psychiatrist with Vancouver Coastal Health, had audience members watch snippets from recorded interviews he conducted with opioid-addicted patients. One of the interview subjects told Azar that his mom also used, and noted that taking drugs was one of the few activities they still did together.

These clips underscored the significance of environmental and psychosocial factors in facilitating lasting recovery. This is an idea that harm-reduction activists, at least in theory, also recognize.

The conference placed a strong emphasis on Indigenous perspectives on addiction and recovery. Indigenous leaders shared stories of how addiction had impacted their families and communities. 

Harm-reduction activists often emphasize the importance of ensuring Indigenous perspectives are incorporated in treatment approaches. It seems unlikely they would have been offended by these presentations.

“I think many harm-reduction activists are well-intended, hardworking and want the right thing,” said former senior White House drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet and one of the conference’s organizers. 

“But they’ve also been led astray by a much smaller group of people who want to dress up radical ideas with sympathetic faces,” he said. “It is in that small band’s group of interest to distort the truth and spread lies about what we are about.”

Sabet and fellow conference organizers have promised to meet with some of the protesters, including parents who lost their children to overdose, at a later point to find areas of agreement. 

In the spirit of protecting open discussion, PROSPER also admitted several individuals who work for organizations that were implicated in the leaked audio recordings.

In his closing keynote, Stanford psychology professor Dr. Keith Humphreys expressed cautious optimism about the future of drug policy. He noted that some of the US’ most drug-addled jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Portland, have recently taken meaningful steps toward sensible drug policies, including ramping up law enforcement in neighbourhoods with high concentrations of drug users.

“I think reality is our friend,” Humphreys said. The past few years have shown that “people who live in an ideological world can recover,” he added, referring to hardline ideological approaches to drug use and other urban issues that have become less popular in recent years. 

It’s a shame that some of the people who may have benefited most from Humphreys’ message weren’t in attendance to hear what he had to say. By protesting initiatives like PROSPER, rather than engaging in good-faith dialogue with those who hold different views, these activists are hurting their own cause.

It's too bad that they’re too blinded by their own ideology to see this.