English Ep 3: « Decriminalizing drugs saves lives » with Spectre de Rue

Against the war on drugs and towards a Harm Reduction approach

Apr 29, 2024

[00:00]

Emilie: The police are not a good solution, because overdoses, the overdose crisis, drug use in general, is not a public safety issue, and you know, the police are there to ensure public safety. It's dangerous for the person doing it, not for the community around it

[00:37]

Karl: We're facing a overdose crisis in every major Canadian city, including Montreal. Over the past 5 years, 2,000 people have died of drug overdoses in Quebec, and more than 30,000 in the rest of Canada.

Alia: For decades, a vast amount of resources have gone towards the criminalization of drugs. This is often framed as a necessary tactic because drugs are unsafe. But drugs are made more or less safe depending on the conditions in which drugs are produced, obtained, and consumed – and the criminalization of drugs has worsened all of these conditions. In other words, the "war on drugs'' is a major source of unsafety.

Karl: People who use drugs, front line workers, researchers and activists have long argued that drugs and overdose should not be treated as a public safety issue, but rather as a psychosocial and public health issue that requires an approach centered on dignity, help and compassion.

Alia: While other major Canadian cities, like Vancouver and Toronto, have mobilized their municipal government to decriminalize drug possession by asking for a federal exemption on drug laws, the Projet Montreal administration has done nothing to move forward on the issue of decriminalization. In response, dozens of community organizations joined together to create the “City Without Overdoses” coalition, or “Ville Sans Surdoses”, in order to push the city of Montreal to take action.

Karl: Recently, the coalition learned that the city has set up a group of experts to promote the decriminalization of drugs.

Alia: Not included on this expert committee, are the people most affected by the overdose crisis: namely the users themselves, and those working on the front lines to support them. To add insult to injury, the SPVM is included, even though they harass and endanger drug users on a daily basis.

Karl: Faced with this situation, the Coalition Ville Sans Surdoses is demanding: 1. a federal exemption, which would allow the city to decriminalize drugs on its territory; 2. the addition of five community organizations to the committee of experts; 3. the withdrawal of the SPVM from this committee.

Alia: This week we’re joined by Emilie and Eva from Spectre de Rue, an organization that is part of the Ville Sans Surdoses coalition. Active since 1986 in the Centre-sud neighbourhood, Spectre de rue takes a harm reduction approach to the prevention and reduction of overdoses and the spread of sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections.

[03:00]

Alia: You’re listening to Brûler/Bâtir, a podcast about reimagining collective safety!

Karl: Brûler (burn down)… because the police perpetuate violence and are a failed approach to safety.

Alia: Bâtir (build up)… because we can invest in, and amplify, systems of care, justice, and safety without policing.

Karl: Every month, we talk to people working to build real safety in Montreal/Tiohtià:ke, and hear about how the police get in the way.

Alia: I’m Alia

Karl: I’m Karl.

Alia : And we’re gonna be your hosts.

[03:26]

Emilie: So, I'm Emilie. I'm the outreach team coordinator at Spectre de Rue. I've worked in supervised consumption sites and street work for several years. I'm also the president of AQPSUD, which is the Association Québécoise de Promotion de la Santé des Utilisateurs de Drogues. And I'm a social work student.

Eva: I'm Eva. I've been a peer helper in intervention and outreach at Spectre de Rue for almost 3 years now. I'm also studying drug addiction at the Université de Sherbrooke. In my spare time, I'm a research chair on homelessness in general, drug addiction and all that sort of thing.

Emilie: So Spectre de Rue is a community organization in the Centre Sud district.

We have a safe consumption site where people can come, of course, to consume, but they can also pick up consumption and safe-sex materials, and have access to nurses and so on. There's also a substance analysis service that does drug checking. And there's TAPAJ, which is the youth section for 16-30 year olds, which is alternative work paid by the day, where we provide economic support for young people in precarious situations - in the form of work that is paid in cash directly after their work package.

Then there's the outreach component, which is me and Eva's program, where we do street work, peer support and community work. Yeah, I'm going to have to leave you for a moment because I've got a crisis to deal with. So I'll be back afterwards.

Eva: I'm going to talk in depth about the role of the peer-support. I have this job because I have an experiential background, I have a background that's similar to the people we work with. It's something we really value in the field of drug addiction, homelessness and all those things. The principle is nothing about us without us. I've been doing this for 3 years now, before I had no idea what it was. I didn't know it existed. Then I saw the job offer, jumped on board and here I am. My area is STBBI prevention, and more specifically HIV and Hepatitis C.

Karl: That ties in a bit with our next question, which was about the trajectory that led you to do what you do today? What does it mean to you to help people in situations that you've experienced or are still experiencing?

Eva: In my opinion, it's the logical continuation of my interests, which had been there for a long time, which matched what I'd experienced, and which also aligned with why I came to Montreal, to be able to do things a little more my way. You know, because I'm from the North Shore, where we don't have that many options when it comes to how you get into a job. There they're not necessarily going to take someone with no school experience into a social work position or that kind of thing. There's not as much diversity of interventions like street work and things like that, or if there is, it's really minimal, you know. Coming here is a bit like giving myself this freedom. To take people where they are, and not be judgmental about certain practices, certain attitudes to life, whatever. Anyway, who am I to judge? And to really try to understand the person and where they're at, and to respect everyone's own rhythm.

[Emilie returns]

Emilie: I'll have to go up at some point, but for now I'm going down.

Karl: You've talked a lot about the philosophical ideas behind harm reduction. But, perhaps Emilie you could continue, in concrete terms, what does that mean?

Emilie: In concrete terms, it means listening to the person's needs, not putting our needs before theirs. You know, if you think about me for example, my need is to go home every night and sleep. And to have a warm blanket and a comfortable pillow. It's easy to say, "Yeah, but everybody needs to sleep. And everyone wants to sleep in a bed with a blanket, a cozy pillow. That's not necessarily the case. So you know, people who say, I've got nowhere to sleep tonight. You don't have to go right away into, OK we'll find you a shelter, we'll find a place to sleep and everything. Their need may be just to have 3 bucks to buy a coffee at McDonald's so they can spend the night in the warmth of McDonald's for a while. It could be just having a sleeping bag so you don't get super cold at night. Even if it's confronting, even if it's hard to see sometimes. Because you say to yourself: this person clearly needs to take a few days off and then eat well, sleep well, take a shower. Well, you know, maybe at that point they just need to get through the day and then we'll see. You know, we're not necessarily all at the same pace either. So you have to let people go at their own pace and go with what they want, because people know what's good for them in general.

It's also about being a bit ingenious, being open, and being flexible. You know, I'm thinking of a job I had, where we had a housing program, where we helped people find an apartment. So, you know, these were often people who had been homeless for several years.

We find them an apartment, we furnish it, you know, we buy new furniture. Even I dream of having access to this subsidy. There's your little kitchen, your bedroom, your new bed. There are lots of people who ended up sleeping outside, you know. They've got their own apartment, that's what they wanted, you know, they named it to us, they took the necessary steps, they mobilized around this need to have access to it. It wasn't all handed to them. But then they couldn't sleep in their own beds, they couldn't sleep in four walls because they were so anxious and uncomfortable. So you know, we're like, okay, well, what do we do? You know, they're going to their place to eat, relax, and then at night they leave with their cardboard box and their blanket and go sleep in the park next door. Someone I had a connection with, I think it took a year before he slept in his own bed. It started in the park, and eventually he slept in his house but on the floor. Then at some point he ended up sleeping in his own bed. He finally liked it, a bed, but it took a long time to get him to that point. And you know, if we'd rushed him by saying: We'll pay for an apartment so you can sleep in it, and if not, too bad, then you'll be out if you don't. If we'd one that we'd have set him up for failure, we'd have lost our connection with him because we wouldn't have met his need.

Eva: It's something to do with community. In fact, once you get into your apartment, you realize that you're actually alone. It lacks noise, it lacks security, it lacks your gang. The kind of security you had either being in a gang or…

Emilie: I'll be back, again.

[Emilie leaves the room]

Karl: It's like this imposition that everyone's need is to be housed.

Eva: Sure. Imposing our vision of comfort, and of a lifestyle that's in very, very big quotes "normal." Personally, I think we really need to think smaller. You know, not having something at the federal level that's a decision for all the other provinces, all the other villages, all the other cities. You know, it really has to be the community that decides what works for them. Because someone who doesn't live in my community, who doesn't understand my realities. I'm sure the decision they make will be biased based on what they've experienced and what they represent.

Alia: I often find, when I explain something to someone, a situation, a story, they ask me: Oh, is it scalable? It's like, the only things that are worth pursuing are things that can be -

Eva: - bigger.

Alia: Transported across the country or communities. And it’s interesting that you’re saying we should rethink why we want to do that. What would it mean to start with each other in these particular communities? I think that’s what the One Million Experiments Project that we kind of based this podcast after – something that they really emphasize is: these are models that we think work really well in these situations, but they're not going to work for other people. They're not going to be replicable in other situations. They can inspire certain things, but they're not like cookie cutter situations because being entangled with people is much messier.

Karl: It's in line with a great principle of abolitionism: solutions for care by the communities themselves. Then it won't be top down.

Alia: Yeah, right.

Eva: You have to consider how we're brought up in this individualistic capitalist context, some people haven't necessarily developed that community spirit - because they're like I'm my own person, I have to make my own cash, I have to have my own house - and they're going to have more difficulty actually understanding the whole principle of community care. From the abolition point of view, we work things out for ourselves instead of relying on the prison system and the justice system. There are initiatives like PODS, the Projet d'Observation des Drogues et des Surdoses. But for the moment, it's just in Montreal, but you can make reports, and then they'll issue alerts, often much more quickly than public health.

Karl: If we get to the heart of the matter, we often talk about the war on drugs. Especially in the American context, in the United States, in Western Canada as well. Do you think there's a war on drugs in Montreal? And what does that mean to you, a city at war with drugs?

Eva: We've been brought up with this view that using is bad, that people who take drugs aren't good people, etc. Even among people who use, there's often a categorization like what's a good drug user, a bad drug user, soft drugs, hard drugs. We're still influenced by these ideas. And it's really hard to break away from that, you know. And how do I see war on drugs manifesting itself? Well precisely in interactions with the police, with the people on the street. Or the way shopkeepers treat them. Or seeing the negative way people perceive people who consume. All the judgment behind it. All this stuff is getting so, so outrageous. The alternatives, like safe supply, like decriminalization, all of that would make it possible to consume in ways that would really be safer. Because, of course, like everything else, consumption involves a certain amount of risk. But can't we, like, give people a chance to take fewer risks in what they do and let them do what they want anyway?

Karl: We're very focused on people's conduct, on their issues, on their failures. Rather than saying: there are social conditions that lead to isolation, and so people come back to drug use. And so we have to make sure these drugs are not contaminated.

Eva: Yes, that's right. It;s really about addressing what leads people to drug use, what leads people to end up on the streets? And that brings us back to the name Spectre de Rue, because the way I see it, there really is a spectrum, there's a great diversity of challenges that people we work with face. That's why it's so important not to have a model that's one size fits all.

Alia: I think almost everyone is impacted by the overdose crisis. If it's not you, you probably have someone close to you who is. It's something that touches, I would say, the corners of, all of our lives.

Eva: Attacking the overdose crisis isn't just about changing the behavior of people who use. It's really about going into something deeper and understanding what got us there, why we got there, what's not working. And to actually listen, to listen to the community, to listen to the world, to what they have to say, you know. There are research projects that will seek out people with experiential experience and say: "What do you think will be relevant to your reality? What changes could we make in the neighborhood? And some of them say, "You've been asking us the same questions for 20 years, and nothing's changed yet, so instead of asking people more questions, we have to offer them something real.

Karl: How would decriminalizing drugs help your work?

Eva: In many ways. For one thing, it's expensive to criminalize people, for real. Not for us, but for the state. So you know, it would allow other alternatives, other projects. Not everyone wants to stop consuming, not everyone is capable of going on a detox but for the moment that's the only thing people are proposing. Either that, or you work it out for yourself, or you go on a Suboxone, or Methadone program, which also isn't suitable for everyone. Because it's really strict, like you have to be there at such and such a time, you have to be there every day. It doesn't work for everyone. If we decriminalize, to defiance, it could lead to so many projects that we're not able to set up at the moment, but that we'd like to develop. But people are still convinced that a punitive system is what's going to work. That people will stop doing something because they're afraid of the repercussions of doing it. But it obviously doesn't work! There's a lot of recidivism when people are incarcerated. People will just find a way of doing things without getting caught, and then it leads to consumption in isolation. At some point, it's just a vicious circle. Like hey, it doesn't work, we're trying to do something but it doesn't work, we're trying to do something but it doesn't work.

Alia: To be in a situation where you might be able to or want to, either find ways of using drugs in a safer way or stop using, you need to be supported and safe. The idea that being in prison or being in a situation where you are so terrified, wouldn't just lead you to using more! Or be using more unsafe ways! It's so obvious!

Eva: Which can easily lead to a sense of failure. You know, let's take the example of rehab or narcotics anonymous. It's not for everyone. It mimics the punitive system. Let's say you're late for one of the meetings, then [the punishment] is adapted to the person. It's like if a social worker arrives late for a meeting, and then their punishment is she loses her right to talk to others for a day. Or the opposite, if someone is antisocial and doesn't talk too much to others. Then when she arrives late she's forced to talk to at least 10 people during the day. That kind of thing. And it really resembles some kind of punitive system. I find it completely absurd. And if I was in that environment, I'd for sure try and leave early and go back to using because what the fuck I've just been through.

Karl: The prison system manages to spread its roots so far into XXX society, it's like I can't believe police and the prison system still has a monopoly on discourse. We're so focused on how bad drugs are and on their criminalization. It's just a distraction from psychosocial issues, health issues, issues of isolation.

Eva: Yes, completely! That's it, it's not even just mental health issues or isolation or whatever. It's also the issues with our economic structures with housing, job security, education, immigration, all that. There's so much more to it than people realize. You can't just tackle drug use. It's really like asking ourselves questions about how things are really not working, can we change things? Can we look ourselves in the face and understand what we're doing? How we're participating in this system that creates precarity and marginalization.

Karl: Yeah, people don't know how violent it is to be in contact with a system that watches over you. That creates a revolving door. Once you're in, like for a drug deal, then you're endlessly followed.

Eva: You're tagged for life. And the you're screwed.

Karl: Then there are the squares, the red zones around people, so they can't go out in certain neighbourhoods.

Eva: Then you're stuck. You can't get out of the zone they've imposed on you. It's rough on your mental health. For real. It's adding these additional barriers and borders to the ones you already confront.

Karl: We've talked about the limits of repression, and of the legal system. Then we'd like to know, from your point of view, what other possibilities is Spectre de Rue proposing? What else could be done if there was adequate funding?

Eva: How things work in the community right now is that we adapt to the realities of the moment. We don't have the tools or resources to attack the source directly, to change things structurally. We're really grounded in the needs of the individual, bearing in mind the whole societal context right now. Let me take TAPAJ as an example. If I'm not mistaken, TAPAJ began at a time when there was a lot of squeegee and petty crime, like stealing from grocery stores to feed oneself. [TAPAJ] was created to give young people an alternative, to make some income. Because a 9 to 5 is for everyone. Not everyone can work every day, every week on a regular basis, be accountable, have a boss. So it was really about adapting to needs, adapting to what's going on right now, you know? It's still super relevant today. It's all over the place too. It's not just in Montreal, you've got them elsewhere in Quebec, you've got them in France. And each one has its own colour, you know, because they adapt to the realities of the community around them.

Otherwise, with regard to the peer helper project, what's really valuable is that you know the reality of the people you're working with, because you've often experienced something similar. That creates a different bond, a different way of connecting. And then with SCS, it's just the fact that people come to use somewhere safe, that people are equipped to respond to an overdose, that we have Naloxone, nurses.

I'll give you an example, about someone who's passed away now, about 3 years. Then it was the middle of winter. It was nearly -30 outside. I was out on the street with my colleague. We arrive just beside Spectre de Rue, and this person is there trying to inject into his hand. But his hit had frozen in his syringe. So he couldn't inject himself. So he was rushing, you know, and he was already a bit frozen. We told him: it won't work. I'm really sorry, but do you want us to go with you to Spectre to get into the SCS? You can thaw your syringe, do another hit while you wait, then do it again later. And just to be able to offer this alternative. The person came to the SCS for the first time, and then he started coming more regularly, you know. At least 1 or 2 times a week. He'd come to get supplies even when he wasn't using. It offered him some safety and support. Now there are 5 in Montreal. And we're not able to cover like around the clock, because of lack of funding, lack of employees. Lack of opening hours.

[Emilie returns]

Karl: [Laughs] We'll just introduce you at the beginning of the interview!

Emilie: Ah, I'm so disappointed. But that's it, I had to take care of my team.

Karl: We'd come to the conclusion that judicialization isn't a good idea, it's a real pain in the ass, and then we were asking what we can build around it? And what else Spectre might be able to offer with more resources?

Emilie: Obviously, we need a total decriminalization of substance use. But you know, we also criminalize a lot, we put poor people through the courts a lot. Just for occupying public space, for example. We also need supportive communities that don't stigmatize, that understand other people's realities. You know, people who use drugs are often perceived in a negative light, especially if they're in a situation of poverty or precariousness.

But you know, there are lots of things that can be demystified, that can be understood and new ways of reacting can be learned. I think we need to build spaces, communities where the people impacted by these issues have a central voice, obviously. And not just to look good, but to really involve them in the needs and construction of that space. So we can really build from the ground up.

Eva: That makes sense.

Karl: How did you come to believe that the police weren't the right answer to dealing with overdoses?

Eva: It's not that I saw something that necessarily convinced me of that, it already aligned with my overall values. And it comes down to trusting people to know what they need. It's not realistic to ask police officers to be able to react in every possible situation. To be able to react appropriately too, because you know, they're going to react in a certain way that may not be adapted to reality, that may make a crisis worse. Instead of putting all that burden on one person, on a group of people, we can take turns picking up the slack.

Alia: that reframing is so important. I think sometimes there’s this public discourse that overdoses are dangerous for the people in proximity. But if we’re trying to build a world where everyone is safe, then maybe when you see someone either overdosing or in an unsafe situation, maybe it's actually your responsibility to have more knowledge to support them. Maybe it’s not the responsibility of the public to shield people from having to witness it.

Emilie: People are led to believe that it's dangerous, people who use, when in fact everyone - many people - use at one level or another. If you do it in the public space, well obviously it's going to raise other issues because you've got nowhere else to do it. So you're going to occupy public space "badly". Maybe you'll have conflicting interactions with people around you. Because when you're on the brush, you feel a bit like a fighter. But you know, if you're alone at home with your friends, no one can see you, so you're not a danger to others.

Karl: People have the right to use.

Emilie: That's right. In certain contexts, and in certain ways. We're trying to invisibilize entire populations, entire issues. These issues won't be resolved because we can't see them. Just because you can no longer hear people shouting in the park next to you, it doesn't mean they're better off, and their problems are solved, it means they're somewhere else, and they may be in more danger.

If they overdose, where are people going to be if not in the park? If they're hidden, no one will see them? And that's something we've heard with the rise in overdoses: people using public spaces because they're afraid of using the mall toilet and dying alone. But if it happens on the sidewalk, someone's bound to see them passed out on the ground. You know, people are afraid for their lives, for their friends, for their community. And it's terrible. It's no fun living in that climate of fear. Since the substances are often contaminated, you never know. Are you going to wake up after your hit or not?

Alia: So the name of the podcast is going to be Brûler / Bâtir. My question is, what carceral system would you like to burn down and what would you like to build instead?

Eva: Burn the fucking fines. A fine is a completely unjust punishment for someone who's poor, because someone who's rich won't give a shit, he'll just pay it. Some people have already said this verbatim: Oh no, it's not a big deal, the parking fine is only 80 bucks. Because they're going to pay it, it doesn't change anything. But for me, it means I won't be able to buy food for a week. Someone who's drunk in a bar, who's pissing everyone off, who's banging his head on every corner of the wall, that's okay. But someone who drinks a beer in a park because he doesn't have an apartment, he could be fined, he could be prosecuted for it. The cops might come and bother him because of it, and he might have to empty his beer. It's completely useless, so we burn the fines.

Karl: What would you build instead?

Eva: That's a good question. I hadn't gotten there. I was so in my frustrated.

Emilie: I think I'd burn a lot of stuff, and if I have to decide, I'd decriminalize behaviour that doesn't hurt anyone. Drugs, sex work, poverty. It doesn't hurt anyone, and criminalizing it puts the world in danger, and causes people to suffer consequences that are harmful to themselves, but also to society in general. Then burn down the prisons, because that's the next logical step. When you have too many fines, you end up in jail. When you're criminalized, you end up in prison. Then, finally, it prevents you from moving forward, it puts a lot of obstacles in your way throughout your life. You lose your job, your apartment.

Emilie: I think I'd build a great community, with lots of grassroots initiatives. Lots of different initiatives that respond to different realities. Beautiful, joyful, supportive communities.

Eva: From my point of view, it wouldn't necessarily be something to build, but rather to change something in education, in fact. To value community spirit, and respect for others in spaces. Because let's say someone's drunk, the fine they're going to get is for audible noise. Which I find completely absurd. [But] if someone says can you please stop shouting, I've got a kid sleeping. You're like 'okay, I'm going to go shout somewhere else. You know, instead of like calling the police, getting the person fined. We should rely on each other's goodwill, we have to care about each other, even if they're not necessarily part of your community.

Emilie: And then taking into consideration that everyone is capable of addressing their needs, then responding to their needs.

Eva: Many things.

Emilie: And to not be so regulated all the time in all our interactions with each other, with what we say, and with what we do. To not surveil. Just to say it: You're bothering me today. Then there's you're both less annoyed because it's self-regulatory.

[A pre-interview selfie of Alia and Karl from the basement of Spectre de Rue]

[37:00]

Karl: Brûler Bâtir is made by Alia, Karl, Abby, Zo, and Orlando.

Alia: Big thanks to Emilie and Eva for joining us on the show this month.

Karl: To learn more about the campaign to decriminalize drugs in Montreal, visit the defund website.

Alia: Our outro song is by Kimmortel off their new album Shoebox and is linked in the show notes where you can find a full transcript of the episode in English and French. We do this work in Tiohtià:ke on the unceded lands of the Kanien'kehá:ka.

Karl: Like and subscribe to the podcast! Thanks for listening and see you next time!

Brûler Bâtir