PARENTS POWERLESS TO HELP THEIR ADDICTED TEENS

by CAA | Sep 7, 2024 | Illicit Drugs, Library, Safe Injecting Rooms, Uncategorized

British Columbia (B.C.) parents say the province’s safer supply program and legal treatment framework leave them powerless to help their addicted teens.

CAA Comment-

Another insightful article from Break the Needle and highlights the folly of the Harm Minimisation strategy again.

It does not take a visionary to conclude that Victoria is heading down the same path.

This harrowing story of the death of a fourteen-year-old girl from a drug overdose brings into stark relief the flaws that our lawmakers have allowed to permeate our society driven by flawed ideology.

The collision of the principles of harm minimisation and rights of parents over their children which destroys parental responsibility because they have none, according to the State.

This anomaly which conflicts with the age of criminal accountability must be addressed before Victorian children suffer the same fate as Kamilah Sword and the pain inflicted on her family.

Greg Sword and his now-deceased daughter, Kamilah Sword.

By Alexandra Keeler

On Aug. 19, 2022, Kamilah Sword took a single hydromorphone pill, believing it to be safe. She overdosed and was found dead by her grandmother the next day. She was 14.

Kamilah believed the drug was safe — despite having bought it illicitly — because she was told it came from a government-run “safer supply” program, according to Kamillah’s best friend Grace Miller and her father.

“I’ll never get to see her get married, never have grandkids, never get to see her graduate,” said Kamilah’s father, Gregory Sword, lowering his chin to keep his voice steady.

“It’s a black hole in the heart that never heals.”

Sword faced significant challenges trying to get his daughter help during the year he was aware she was struggling with addiction. He blames British Columbia’s safer supply program and the province’s legal youth treatment framework for exacerbating his daughter’s challenges and ultimately contributing to her death.

“It’s a B.C. law — you cannot force a minor into rehab without their permission,” said Sword. “You cannot parent your kid between the ages of 12 and 18 without their consent.”

Sword is now pursuing legal action against the B.C. and federal governments and several health agencies, seeking accountability for what he views as systemic failures.

B.C.’s “Safe” supply program

B.C.’s prescribed safer supply program, which was first launched in 2020, is designed to reduce substance users’ reliance on dangerous street drugs. Users are prescribed hydromorphone — an opioid as potent as heroin — as an alternative to using potentially lethal street drugs.

However, participants in the program often sell their hydromorphone, in some cases to teenagers, to get money to buy stronger drugs like fentanyl.

According to Grace Miller, she and Kamilah would obtain hydromorphone — which is commonly referred to as Dilaudid or “dillies” — from a teenage friend who bought them in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. The neighbourhood, which is the epicentre of Vancouver’s drug crisis, is a 30-minute SkyTrain ride from the teenagers’ home in Port Coquitlam.

Sword says he initially thought “dillies” referred to Dairy Queen’s Dilly Bars. “My daughter would ask me for $5, [and say], ‘Yeah, we’re going to Dairy Queen for a Dilly Bar.’ I had no idea.”

He says he only learned about hydromorphone after the coroner informed him that Kamilah had three substances in her system: cocaine, MDMA and hydromorphone.

“I had to start talking to people to figure out what [hydromorphone] was and where it was coming from.”

Sword is critical of B.C.’s safer supply program for being presented as safe and for lacking monitoring safeguards. “[Kamilah] knew where [the drugs] were coming from so she felt safe because her dealer would keep on telling her, ‘This is safe supply,’” Sword said.

In February, B.C. changed how it refers to the program from “prescribed safer supply” to “prescribed alternatives.”

CAA Comment – changing names doesn’t solve a problem but exacerbates it.

“It would be a big difference if the prescriptions that they were giving out were dosed properly,” she said, noting adGrace says another problem with the program is the quantities of drugs being distributed.dicts would typically sell bottles containing 14 pills, with pricing starting at $1 a pill.

Sword estimates his daughter struggled with addiction for about 18 to 24 months before her final, fatal overdose.

After Kamilah overdosed for the first time on Aug. 21, 2021, he tried to get her into treatment. A drug counsellor told him that, because she was over 12, she would need to verbally consent. Kamilah refused treatment.

B.C.’s Infants Act allows individuals aged 12 or older to consent to their own medical treatment if they understand the treatment and its implications. The province’s Mental Health Act requires minors aged 12 to 16 to consent to addiction or mental health treatment.

While parents can request involuntary admission for children under 16, a physician or nurse practitioner must first confirm the presence of a mental disorder that requires treatment. No law specifically addresses substance-use disorders in minors.

When Kamilah was admitted to the hospital on one occasion, she underwent a standard psychiatric evaluation and was quickly discharged — despite Sword’s protests.

Ontario also has a mental health law governing involuntary care. Similar to B.C., they permit involuntary care only where a minor has been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

By contrast, Alberta’s Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act enables a parent or guardian to obtain a court order to place a child under 18 who is struggling with addiction into a secure facility for up to 15 days for detoxification, stabilization and assessment. Alberta is unique among the provinces and territories in permitting involuntary care of minors for substance-use issues.

CAA Comment – The CAA has advocated for a similar health-based regime to treat all illicit drug users.

Grace, who also became addicted to opioids, says her recovery journey involved several failed attempts.

“I never thought I would have almost died so many times,” said Grace, who is now 16. “I never thought I would even touch drugs in my life.”

Grace’s mother Amanda (a pseudonym) faced similar struggles as Sword in trying to get help for her daughter. Amanda says she was repeatedly told nothing more could be done for Grace, because Grace would not consent to treatment.

“One time, [Grace] overdosed at home, and I had to Narcan her because she was dead in her bed,” Amanda said. “I told the paramedic, ‘Our system is broken.’ And she just said, ‘Yes, I know.’”

Yet Grace, who today has been sober for 10 months, would question whether she even had the capacity to consent to treatment when she was addicted to drugs.

Under B.C.’s Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, an adult is only considered to have consented to health care if their consent is voluntary, informed, legitimately obtained and the individual is capable of making a decision about their care.

“Mentally able to give consent?” said Grace. “No, I was never really mentally there.”

System failure

Today, Sword is one of two plaintiffs leading a class-action lawsuit against several provincial and federal health authorities and organizations, including the B.C. Ministry of Health, Health Canada, Vancouver Coastal Health and Vancouver Island Health.

All four of these agencies declined to comment for this story, citing the ongoing court proceedings.

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 15 and is currently awaiting certification to proceed. It alleges the coroner initially identified safer supply drugs as a cause of Kamilah’s death, but later changed the report to omit this reference due to pressure from the province or for other unknown reasons.

It further alleges B.C. and Ottawa were aware that drugs prescribed under safer supply programs were being diverted as early as March 2021, but failed to monitor or control the drugs’ distribution. It points to a Health Canada report and data showing increased opioid-related problems from safer supply programs.

According to Amanda, Kamilah had wanted to overcome her addiction but B.C.’s system failed her.

“I had multiple conversations with Kamilah, and I know Kamilah wanted to get clean,” she says. “But she felt so stuck, like she couldn’t do it, and she felt guilty and ashamed.”

Grace, who battled addiction for four years, is relieved to be sober.

“I’ve never, ever been happier. I’ve never been healthier. It’s the best thing I’ve done for myself,” she said. “It’s just hard when you don’t have your best friend to do it with.”

CAA Comment. – When will illicit drug apologists ever learn?

Key facts

Hydromorphone is a strong opioid-based pain medicine that can only be prescribed by your doctor.
Hydromorphone is prescribed for the short-term relief of severe pain, where other pain-relief medicines have not been effective or cannot be used.
Hydromorphone is not the same as morphine — it is much more potent (stronger), so take care not to confuse the two.
Always take hydromorphone exactly as prescribed by your doctor.
Don’t stop taking hydromorphone suddenly, as you may experience withdrawal symptoms.

FIVE TEENS ARRESTED IN STOLEN CAR

by CAA | Aug 8, 2024 | Library, Road Safety, Victoria Police Issues, Youth

“Four teenage girls and a 12-year-old boy have been arrested and a number of machetes seized after allegedly leading police on a chase across Melbourne’s eastern suburbs in a stolen car” – Herald Sun on the 8^th of August 2024.

This report is a far too common theme, young children committing very serious crimes, and the headline response from the government is to raise the age of criminal responsibility from ten to thirteen in the new Youth Justice Bill currently before parliament. What an inane response.

Unbelievable as it may seem, the new Act also removes any accountability for young offenders and gives them control of their processing.

The Bill imbues the child perpetrator with the power to reject any efforts to manage their behaviour by authorities.

This provides a blatant windfall for Lawyers representing the young, guiding them to exercise their newfound extended rights.

They are old enough to make decisions about their management but too young to understand that they are committing a crime, really?

There is a distinct possibility that these changes, opening the door for lawyer involvement, will not benefit the child but have the opposite effect.

Given these changes, not only will young people be disadvantaged, but the community will have no idea what number of children under thirteen and eventually under fourteen are committing acts that would otherwise be crimes.

Perhaps fortunate for these particular young offenders, the Youth Justice Act will not influence the process that can currently be implemented. Therefore, there is hope that these children will be redirected from a life of crime.

But let us presume, for the sake of debate, that the Youth Justice Act is operational relative to this incident.

In particular, the circumstance of the twelve-year-old.

Under the new Bill, the Police can take the child to a Police station or their home.

They cannot be interviewed or subject the child to any other of the traditional processes designed to reduce crime, such as photographing, fingerprinting, or interviewing.

And who will know, much less have any ability to intervene, if the twelve-year-old is the principal offender leading the girls into crime?

This Bill, however, allows a child to conclude that their behaviour is acceptable.

Steal a car and evade police, having armed themselves for a yet-to-be-determined purpose, and for the twelve-year-old and possibly others, there are no consequences.

They do not have to take responsibility for their actions or intent, and they can reject any attempts by authorities to divert them.

Good police work averted a far more serious crime where obviously the weapons were to be used.

What sort of society are we creating? Not a good or safe one.

The most serious omission of due process is the interview, which, amongst other things, may determine the social dynamic that caused such a young child to end up in a stolen car armed to the teeth.

This information is vital in determining how this child can be diverted from further criminal activity.

Indeed, the current diversion practices are not working well, as evidenced by the monumental increase in young people’s offending. Their crimes of choice are more violent and pose a greater risk to the community and themselves than has ever been the case.

Rather than reducing crime as suggested, the new Youth Justice Bill is whitewashing criminal behaviour and, with it, the power of authorities to intervene and adjust young people’s behaviour.

As the legislation converts the previously criminal behaviour into non-criminal behaviour, it raises critical issues.

What happens to a recidivist child who kills somebody or is killed in a stolen car – does the liability and responsibility lie with the Government?
What action will the government take to stop the young from being recruited by organised crime?
Or, more importantly, given the current risks of terrorism, managing the recruitment of young people by extremists to inflict terror on the community.
What recompense will victims of what would otherwise be crimes receive?

It is well understood that children often do not comprehend the total consequences of their actions. As we head for a dismantling of processes designed to manage young people committing anti-social acts, for all its faults, the effort should focus on improving the current system rather than throwing it out and installing an untested system that is not based on any empirical foundation.

Our children are too important to be used in a social experiment.