Same fight, new arena: Mobilising expertise in times of regression

“Some have decried President Trump for issuing tariffs recently, based on some nations’ failure to stem synthetic drugs gushing like a burst pipe across America’s borders.”

These are the words of Cartwright Weiland, Senior Official for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the United States of America (USA). Weiland used his platform to spread disinformation and blame at the 68th UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) back in March of this year—seemingly proud of his performance, his full remarks were shared verbatim on the U.S. Department of State website. We’re going to stay focused on the above excerpt, the burst pipe of synthetic drugs, but let’s pull one more quote just to set the scene for this auspicious speech:

“Briefly on onto America’s southern neighbor. Oh, Mexico. Yesterday there was a big party in the Zocalo. Lots of music, mucha fiesta. Perhaps everyone was cheering the end of abrazos no balazos.”

Weiland doesn’t deserve any further mention; his words are emblematic of a new tone set by the Trump Administration. His vividly painted portrait of synthetic drugs pouring into the USA, the allegations levied against Canada, and the ensuing threats of economic ruin and annexation are much worthier of our attention. Indeed, these accusations are in bad faith, easily disproven, and paint Canada as a negligent actor on the international stage – it is demonstrable that Canada’s contribution to the American illicit fentanyl supply represents a paltry 0.2% of the amount seized at USA land borders. And yet, in the face of a moral panic driven by disinformation, Canada has capitulated to the USA, first by appointing a Fentanyl Czar and pouring over a billion dollars towards enhanced border security, and now by introducing the Strong Borders Act.

By offering policy ‘solutions’ to a non-existent problem, Canada has accepted the dominant narrative that they are somehow complicit in significantly contributing to the American drug poisoning emergency. Moreover, by responding to these accusations by bolstering interdiction and stepping on human rights, the Canadian Government is accepting the problematization of the fatal drug poisoning emergency as driven by external actors, rather than focusing on domestic structural determinants. Only weeks ago, over 300 civil society organizations demanded the complete withdrawal of the Strong Borders Act, also known as Bill C-2:

“Bill C-2 is anti-privacy, anti-rights, and anti-Canadian. It solves border problems that don’t exist; and breaks rights that do.”

The forever emergency of toxic drugs and toxic drug policies

All of this backsliding is transpiring during Canada and the USA’s prolonged, and persisting, public health emergencies of toxic unregulated drugs. As in the case of most moral panics, there are inarguable truths that must be acknowledged, including the fact that both nations remain in the grips of a devastating crisis. According to the Government of Canada, an average of 21 Canadians die every day at the hands of the toxic, illicit drug supply. That’s a preventable death every hour and eight minutes. Similarly, the National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS) reported “in 2023, 105,007 drug overdose deaths occurred” in the USA.

With the aim of interdiction being drug seizures, policymakers should consider the unintended impacts on communities. Whilst decades of drug war mentalities have led Canadians to believe drug seizures translate to less drugs on the streets and therefore, less harm, a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. A scoping review that included 14 peer-reviewed studies, dating back to 2013, focused on the impact of law enforcement drug seizures on fatal and non-fatal overdose rates in the surrounding area and found that “fentanyl-related seizure measures are positively associated with overdose mortality outcomes”. One study from Indianapolis found that:

“within 7, 14, and 21 days, opioid-related law enforcement drug seizures were significantly associated with increased spatiotemporal clustering of overdoses within radii of 100, 250, and 500 meters”

Mobilising expertise and growing influence

How do you fight back when evidence is abandoned, lives are sacrificed on the altar of international cooperation, and the decision-makers are virtually unreachable? Well, you change your vantage point. You find a new arena. You make new allies. Effective advocacy for a better future – a future that prioritizes human rights, bodily autonomy, evidence and the expertise of those most affected by policy – is of utmost importance to the Harm Reduction Nurses Association (HRNA). In the wake of the USA’s unjustified tariff war and Canada’s newfound policy of appeasement, we decided to apply for consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

When the going gets tough, the tough get creative. Applying for consultative status is free and poses the potential to allow the HRNA to take our advocacy to the international stage. By leveraging our expertise in harm reduction and public health, the HRNA can support the UN’s global health, human rights, and sustainable development goals. At a time when the CND is demonstrating a willingness to rethink the global drug control regime, engagement is a low-risk venture with high reward potential. We seek to encourage others to take this step because there are many experts and vital perspectives that deserve a seat at the table. Simultaneously, we recognise that this process may be overwhelming, and so we have agreed to share our experience as we navigate the ECOSOC consultative status application.

Truly, the biggest challenge in the ECOSOC application process is the way it makes you feel vulnerable. There are both supporters and detractors of harm reduction at the adjudication table and clicking ‘submit’ on your application elicits a degree of anxiety. Aside from discomfort, the application is straightforward. Most of the questions from the application are likely easily pulled from your organisation’s website, bylaws, and financial statements. We know it may take a year, or two, or three, before our application is approved. But we also know, even with past instances of blatant gatekeeping and censorship, that we will be successful in the end. One thing is for certain. We cannot rely on the so-called expertise of our elected leaders in matters relating to international drug policy, because they’re not basing their policies on expertise, or evidence, or ethics.