Julian Somers: The Charter should protect the public, not just drug users

When two operators of Vancouver’s Drug User Liberation Front (DULF) were found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking last month, no one should have been surprised.

Eris Nyx and Jeremy Kalicum were charged in October 2023 after running a storefront “compassion club” in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for a little more than a year. During that time, the pair bought illicit drugs — heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine — off the dark web, had them tested at a University of Victoria lab to ensure purity, and sold the drugs to the club’s 43 members for cost. Their stated goal was to prevent deaths attributed to drug poisoning.

Although the B.C. government-funded club was granted an exemption from Vancouver Coastal Health for the testing, packaging and supervised consumption of drugs, Health Canada had denied an exemption for the purchase of the drugs off the dark web “because of the associated public health and safety risks.” Furthermore, Nyx and Kalicum were warned that they would be in violation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) if they did purchase the drugs off the dark web.

DULF opened regardless, and operated until police eventually intervened and Nyx and Kalicum were charged — days before the club was to close under order by B.C.’s Health Ministry.

Now that the pair have been found guilty, their defence has moved into the realm of human rights with a Constitutional challenge. Is Canada’s Charter relevant to their case? From a psychological standpoint, yes. But in the opposite way to what DULF’s lawyers are arguing.

The Canadian Charter guarantees rights and freedoms “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Section 7 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Those rights are upheld by policies that reasonably serve to prevent and treat harmful addictions and thereby respect the rights of all persons. B.C. is the only jurisdiction on Earth that has not only decriminalized the public use of illicit drugs but also dispensed pharmaceuticals to people who live in poverty with untreated addictions and promoted illegal drug user co-ops. Those policies were advised against by many authorities and have predictably yielded profound harms.

The B.C. government tried unsuccessfully to curtail its decriminalization experiment after a little more than a year, and in July of this year the federal government quietly announced it was discontinuing support for its “safe supply” initiative. But while they were in place, both policies compromised the security rights of citizens and drove addiction, poisonings, public intoxication, business closures, theft and violent crime.

More Canadians have died from drugs in the past 10 years (January 2016 to March 2025) than were sacrificed in the Second World War. A Statistics Canada report found that 63.4 per cent of B.C. overdoses between 2014 and 2016 involved individuals who were unemployed. According to the B.C. Coroner’s Service, drug poisoning was the leading cause of death among the province’s youth between 2019 and 2023; two-thirds of those kids had been recipients of government care. Yet no B.C. policies prioritize helping marginalized drug users to regain employment or ensure that high-risk youth are supported through the transition to adulthood. Other jurisdictions prevent and treat addictions by supporting basic rights that have well-established influences on addiction, including healthy housing, support gaining employment, and achieving social integration. And it is the absence of attention to those rights that violates both the letter and intent of Canada’s Charter.

DULF’s proponents acknowledge that their trafficking actions were undertaken as a desperate attempt to compensate for public policies that result in preventable deaths. And because public policies are strongly related to addiction they must be the first priority of governments, with support from the courts. By contrast it would set a dangerous precedent to affirm that illegal drug trafficking is justifiable when governments drive citizens to addiction. For example, a recent drug-related murder in B.C. was described by police as a “targeted and brazen shooting in a high-traffic area” with “complete disregard for public safety.” If violating the law to engage in trafficking is a reasonable response to unreasonable drug policies, would courts similarly exonerate citizens who illegally carried concealed firearms to protect themselves from drug-fuelled violence?

Canada’s Charter includes the following Citation: “We must now establish the basic principles, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadians so that beyond our regional loyalties there is a way of life and a system of values which make us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasurable joy.” The horrors of mass addiction were only possible because some Canadian governments abandoned practices that fulfilled those aspirations. We must resist further enabling the perpetuation of destructive and idiosyncratic drug policies, and instead affirm that citizens deserve governments that prioritize prevention, treatment and accountability.

Overcoming Canada’s mass addiction crisis requires a collective investment in post-traumatic growth. And our Charter can be a source of guidance, leading us to strengthen pride in Canadian citizenship and affirm our shared commitment to the preconditions for freedom and joy. Let that be the silver lining to our years of suffering, and our legacy to all those who we have lost.

National Post

Julian Somers is a clinical psychologist and specialist in addiction. He is a Distinguished Professor at Simon Fraser University.