I don't say "safe supply". It's quite unfair to talk, and continue to talk about, safe supply. I hear more Conservatives, if I may politicize this a little, talk about anti-harm reduction, and safer supply advocates use the word “safe supply”. We use the term "safer", because it's safer than unregulated and uncontrolled substances that are on the market. That's prohibition. Prohibition is refraining from have some rules and quality controls. It stigmatizes people.
Safer supply is an attempt to do something, because this problem is basically at its very core a problem of deaths. If people die from overdosing, it's because they don't know what they're taking. I took fentanyl in a hospital setting. I knew what it was. It was under medical supervision. Fentanyl is not a dangerous drug. The danger is not knowing what you're taking. Let's say if you go to a liquor store and buy alcohol, you need to know what's in it. Either it's 5% alcohol or 95%. How can you have responsible use? It's impossible.
Safer supply is a way to have a plaster, a band-aid solution, on something that's very much more profound. It's the absence of control in a context where people use and will continue to use, so we have to find nuanced solutions, as my colleague Dr. de Villa said.
Safer supply is maybe new. We need to continue evaluations, but what we know up until now, the balance is on the side of positive effects.