The question is fundamentally around traceability, and you're right. From a compounding perspective, I don't see how a manufacturer would agree to that.
The medications we get from a safe supply program are from manufacturers. They're not compounded by us and they're not compounded by a community health centre. They come directly from the manufacturer. If you wanted to trace those, you would have to add a second step in order to trace them. That tracer would have to be detected. It would have to be easily detected and it would have to be detected consistently to demonstrate that it came from a particular batch from a manufacturer that led to a concern over diversion.
Anybody in organized crime who makes a tremendous amount of money could easily copy that, because they're far more inventive than traditional manufacturers are. They are far more inventive not because they're smarter, but because they don't play by the rules. There are no rules. They can do whatever they want. All they have to do is get a traced fentanyl analog, a Dilaudid analog or a crystal meth analog, find the tracer and use exactly the same tracer. Then they're off in the clear.
There's no regulatory burden on your average drug dealer. There's a huge regulatory burden on a pharmaceutical manufacturer: again, harm reduction.