For many students, experimenting with recreational drugs is part of the university experience, and a subculture of illicit drug use exists at McGill. To mitigate harmful consequences such as addiction and overdose, floor fellows in first-year residences have historically been trained to practice a harm reduction approach to drug use, based on the principles of non-judgement, compassion, and openness. However, in January, McGill enacted changes that shifted its policies towards a zero-tolerance, abstinence-only approach. This decision can have dangerous ramifications for students since a lack of honest communication about drug use can prevent students from seeking help for drug-related issues. McGill can better protect students in residences by reinstating a harm reduction policy that focusses on safety rather than punishment.
Abstinence-based policies penalize drug users rather than prioritize their safety. On the other hand, harm reduction methods have proven to be more effective than zero-tolerance policies because they destigmatize drug use and encourage users to seek treatment if they want or need it. Accordingly, places that have implemented harm reduction methods have seen decreases in addiction, overdose, and drug-related diseases. However, under the new policy, McGill students who need such support may fear they will be punished for coming forward. This could make them less likely to seek guidance from health and support services, including the Student Wellness Hub. It is unrealistic for McGill to believe these policies will prevent students from using drugs, and it would therefore be more effective for the administration to prioritize making drug use as safe as possible.
One way to implement harm reduction is to foster open communication, but McGill’s new policy compels students to report any suspicion of drug use by their peers. This creates a hostile atmosphere that pits students against one another and discourages them from being honest with their friends about using drugs. If someone is struggling with addiction, they may be less likely to tell their friends, who could risk punishing the user by reporting them or being punished themselves for keeping quiet. Harm reduction encourages openness and honesty, while abstinence-only policies isolate drug users.
New policies also put significant pressure on floor fellows, who are now obligated to file reports to administration or law enforcement if they learn of a student’s drug use. This alters the role of a floor fellow from a supportive to an authoritative figure, discouraging students from seeking help if they or their friends are facing addiction or an overdose. Many popular party drugs in the city have been laced with opioids such as fentanyl, which makes them especially dangerous. If McGill returned to a harm reduction approach, floor fellows could distribute testing kits to students who intend to use drugs so that they can be conscious of what exactly they are taking. Instead of encouraging floor fellows to report their students, McGill should want students to see them as trusted resources. This way, students using drugs can do so in the safest way possible.
By turning to an abstinence-only policy, McGill is ignoring both the realities of student drug use and the research proving the benefits of harm reduction-based policies. It is impossible to keep drugs out of residences, but it is possible to treat drug use as a health issue and encourage students to receive support if they face problems related to addiction. Condemnation and punishment do nothing to keep students safe. McGill students should call upon Student Housing and Hospitality Services to reinstate a harm reduction policy that includes drug testing kits in residences and further training for floor fellows. In doing so, they could reduce the risk of addiction and overdose and potentially save lives.
Dear Mr. Dickinson,
Thank you for writing this article and bringing a very important subject to your readers. I’m appalled to see that McGill will be going back to retrograde, ineffective, stigmatizing, discriminating, and above all, life threatening procedures such as adopting a zero-tolerance on campus and in its residences.
My daughter was a Law and International Development student at University of Ottawa. She died of a fentanyl and sertraline overdose, alone, in her residence room in May 2019 at the age of 24 years old . She had been struggling with anxiety and borderline personality since her teenage years, and had developed a substance use disorder in her late teens. She was an excellent student, involved in different causes to protect the environment and the rights of our First Nations. She was a good kid, a beautiful, compassionate soul. Her passing changed my perception of mental health and substance use disorder forever. From a more conservative point of view regarding drugs, I’ve made a complete 180 degrees turn.
I am now the regional leader (Qc) for a Canadian organization called Moms Stop the Harm, a network of families who have lost a child or relative from the tainted illicit drug supply. We advocate to put an end to the overdose crisis and the failed war on drugs, but mostly we advocate to protect people with substance use disorder from dying. Our goals are to support harm reduction measures, to educate, to put an end to drug related stigma, to push for a safer drug supply, to support evidence-base research and treatments, and to decriminalize simple possession of drugs. Criminality and stigma are not the answer to substance use. We need to approach this as a public health issue, and support any action that will keep our children, youth and young adults alive.
By going back to a zero-tolerance and abstinence-only policy, McGill is in fact, not making everything in its power to protect its student population. To tell the truth, McGill is exposing its student population to harm, and that are, in my opinion, irresponsible decisions. Campuses around the country should adopt harm reduction (testing kits and naloxone readily available for students), prevention (and medical/psychological support given in a non-judgemental approach) and anti-stigma measures, this, of course already being supported by evidence-base research.
We, parents of young adults, want to know that our kids are kept safe and sound when they are on campus. It is simply irresponsible from a reputable institution such as McGill to go back to the Dark Ages of prohibition. It never worked…and in the meantime, our children are exposed to tainted drugs and might end up dying from them. McGill is missing out on a great opportunity to educate, and to demonstrate understanding, support and compassion for students who are using drugs, being a recreational or a regular use. We won’t be able to stop them from experimenting or using, but it is our responsibility as adults, to keep them safe…
Regards,
Isabelle Fortier