Daniel Snyder  00:00 

Thank you for listening to the Unsilencing Stories Podcast. We are in the midst of a public health crisis. More than 32,000 people in Canada have died from fatal opioid overdoses since 2016 according to Health Canada. Previously, this podcast featured interviews with bereaved people in smaller towns and communities in BC and Alberta who have lost loved ones to fatal overdose. In this phase, we're sharing interviews with seven harm reduction workers, also known as peers, in different parts of BC.  

Caitlin Burritt  00:27 

The BC Centre for Disease Control Harm Reduction Services defines harm reduction as support services and strategies that aim to keep people safe and minimise death, disease and injury from high risk behaviour. Peers face a lot of challenges. This has been documented by many researchers including Zahra Mamdani and colleagues in BC. In their 2021 paper they outline significant challenges peers face including financial struggles, difficulty finding housing and stressors at work. We wanted to explore these themes with peers and find out more about their experiences and share this information with the public. So we conducted multiple remote interviews with harm reduction workers and invited them to talk about the stressors they face.    

Caitlin Burritt  01:06 

Please note this podcast contains information about substance use, overdose death, grief, trauma and stressors that peers face and this may be distressing to listen to. The podcast is part of a research project led by Aaron Goodman, PhD, faculty member at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, BC, and conducted under the auspices of a grant known as the Chancellor's Chair Award. I'm Caitlin Burritt, a researcher with the project. A number of researchers including Giorgia Ricciardi and Chloe Burritt, who happens to be my sister, and a number of students have played key roles in the study and you'll hear many of their voices in this podcast.  

Caitlin Burritt  01:41 

In this episode, you'll hear Daniel Snyder talk to Lucas Akai and Esther Cheung about differing viewpoints in approaching harm reduction work, the limits of policy solutions, and the importance of human connection for people who use drugs.  

Lucas Akai  01:53 

Alright. 

Esther Cheung  01:54 

All right.  

Daniel Snyder  01:55 

Good.  

Daniel Snyder  01:57 

It's been a good week, goes by so quick. I probably say that every time. 

Esther Cheung  01:57 

How was your week? 

Lucas Akai  02:03 

It does, it does. 

Daniel Snyder  02:05 

Every time someone asks me that question, I gotta rethink about what I did. Yeah, it's been a good week. Looks like the weather's changing again here. So.  

Lucas Akai  02:16 

Yeah. 

Daniel Snyder  02:16 

Rain, the rain. The rain is coming. 

Lucas Akai  02:18 

And eventually it'll turn into snow. So they say. 

Daniel Snyder  02:22 

I'm not... I like snow. I'm not a-  

Lucas Akai  02:24 

So do I! 

Daniel Snyder  02:24 

-"snow, oh no!" Yeah, I like snow. And we don't get very much. So it's not- 

Lucas Akai  02:30 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  02:30 

I don't think it's justifiable to complain about it. But we get enough rain that we can complain about it. 

Lucas Akai  02:37 

Yeah, when you look at the prairies and see that they're getting it in like October, it's like, "yeah, okay. You guys can keep that." 

Daniel Snyder  02:42 

 Yes! 

Lucas Akai  02:43 

Yep. 

Daniel Snyder  02:43 

I don't know how they do it with snow on the ground already? Of course.  

Lucas Akai  02:48 

It's why they have kids, to shovel, shovel the driveways. 

Esther Cheung  02:48 

Well, I guess 

Esther Cheung  02:53 

That was me growing up.  

Esther Cheung  02:55 

Well, I guess this week, we're kind of following up with what we ended off last week, because we were like, we could do an- 

Daniel Snyder  03:01 

Yeah. 

Esther Cheung  03:02 

-hour on it. 

Daniel Snyder  03:03 

Well, I don't know how big of a conversation it'll turn into. Maybe you'll have some- 

Esther Cheung  03:07 

Let's see!  

Daniel Snyder  03:07 

thoughts that could help. 

Esther Cheung  03:09 

Yeah. 

Daniel Snyder  03:10 

Because, do you want to reframe it? And then I'll give some...  

Lucas Akai  03:13 

For sure. For sure. For sure. So last week, you know, we had touched on it very briefly. This week, you know, the plan is to kind of go over it more in depth. But the basic idea was, as a peer worker, as an individual, as an activist in this field, do you find that there are certain narratives or as you've termed it, certain ideologies, maybe that you almost feel beholden to, as a peer, as an activist, and topics that like, you can't go and talk about, because it might derail other aspects of your work? 

Daniel Snyder  03:55 

I do, I feel that a lot. All the time. Like there's a tension, sort of, that exists. And, and even some of its external. Some of it's like, you know, there's, certainly there's external forces that...That are at work, but there's also an internal tension like, I'm not always settled in my own mind about our approach to things. Are we handling? What is the real solutions to this crisis? What are the things that we should be doing? What are the things that might not really be helping? And also, I think, a lot of policy solutions, the ideas that are put forward by advocates are talked about like they're the, they're a panacea, they're they're gonna fix everything. 

Daniel Snyder  04:44 

Like decriminalisation was kind of talked about that way. A little bit. I mean, maybe media plays a role in, in, in the way it gets sensationalised into the next big thing. So we're going to decriminalise certain substances or, or more accurately, we're going to decriminalise the people who use certain substances. And then, you know, the reasoning within that was, well the stigma will reduce, people won't feel the same pressure to hide their drug use, people will, like over time, be... Have more opportunity, because they're not needing to hide from police.  

Daniel Snyder  05:25 

They can go about their daily life and their drug use can be a part of it without, you know, kind of this hidden covert element and uh, but how does it fix the drug supply? Or how does it prevent overdose deaths? Other than maybe a very small, small part of the population who are the ones that, you know, "oh, I'm no longer going to be treated like a criminal in this context. So I will now feel safe to use an overdose prevention site."  

Daniel Snyder  05:58 

I mean, how many people truly are like that, that exist, that this new change in policy will bring them out of the shadows and into using services? I mean, if there's a change in that regard, my opinion would be it's so subtle, it's not even noticeable, statistically. And it, if there is a dramatic effect, it would be over long periods of time. And so, you know, a part of me is maybe more aware than I would like to be that I think this crisis is not going to end anytime soon.  

Daniel Snyder  06:38 

And so as we've talked previously, that leads for a lot of, you know, when you figure that out, which you can kind of figure by, by just, you know, reading research and looking at the numbers and concluding, looking at the policies as they exist. And really, there's no legitimate, there's no good reason that fentanyl would suddenly disappear from the drug supply.  

Daniel Snyder  07:00 

It's just too profitable at this point in time. Even if people are dying in absurd numbers, it's the cost of doing business for suppliers, right? So advocates are angry because they realise that nothing's changing, and things are pretty much getting worse, and that the policy responses that have been put in place are, are limited, at best in their impact, right.  

Daniel Snyder  07:28 

And so they become more extremist, I think, in their, in their thinking, in their rhetoric, in the, in their ideology. And, you know, harm reduction, for whatever reason is a controversial topic, even though I see zero controversy in it, except for the fact that it seems that people who debate this simply don't understand what it is. And that it's harm reduction as a principle, which I mean, virtually every human being on Earth engages with in their life automatically. So it's almost an element of common sense, right?  

Daniel Snyder  08:04 

You were educated that driving a vehicle without a seatbelt on can result in, in really bad accidents, where you fly out of the car, and your head goes through the windshield. And so, you know, because that's a risk and and you know, the risk exists, you wear your seatbelt to prevent that. You would prevent the harm, the potential harm, and you reduce the harm, and you don't, no one's--is this controversial?  

Daniel Snyder  08:33 

I mean, actually, it was when seatbelts came out. Seriously, people thought the government was infringing on their, their rights, right? When we made it law, it's like, "Who are you to tell me what I can do in my own personal vehicle?" And this was a real response. That was a portion of the general public felt this way, right?  

Daniel Snyder  08:56 

So when you look at an idea, like harm reduction, there's elements in the way that it's carried out the way the principles are enacted, that I don't like. And yet, criticising that is not... not okay, right? You know, when I, and again, this is one of those things that seems to be blurry, because when I'm one on one with people, I feel like the fences and walls come down, and then you can address issues where you see there's things you don't like. I'll just give you a practical example about a harm reduction implementation that I'm not, I'm not opposed to, I'm just not a fan of. 

Daniel Snyder  09:44 

But for me, that's the problem. And when we take the human element of connection out of harm reduction um, I don't see it as wrong because harm reduction is a principle, is a correct principle. And it should be implemented at every level. Regardless of, like, we take judgement completely out of the equation. You need a needle to inject drugs? Here's a needle to inject drugs, no questions asked.  

Lucas Akai  09:44 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  09:44 

And that's these vending machine distribution, vending machines that will give qualified and vetted patients access to their safe supply of opioids. And so rather than it's, it's to make it easier for them, which is valid. You just go to the vending machine, you use your biometric scan, and your drugs are released for the day. Quick and easy, no hassle, you know, no stigmatisation, no demeaning treatment, no real need to interact with a human. 

Daniel Snyder  10:22 

But I mean, I know from my personal experience, that my addiction had me severely disconnected from myself, from society from, from any human, real human connection. And of course, with strong efforts to hide that addiction, I'm not really being genuine, in my relationships, anyway. So I'm very isolated, I'm very alienated, I'm very alone. I know that that was contributing to the, to the addiction, that was prolonging things, it wasn't making anything better, right?  

Daniel Snyder  11:26 

The more you hide, the worse things tend to get. And so even though I can approach harm reduction without judgement, and hand a person something and not...there's, there's, there's this inner conflict, that knows it's right to hand it over, but also knows it's right to say, "Hey, man, there's a better life." And they're both right.  

Daniel Snyder  11:58 

Now, at the same time, I'm not opposed to drug use. But I also know that drug use, it happens on a spectrum, right? And I've mentioned that word, the pharmakeia, and the Greek meaning before, dual meaning: poison and cure. And so of course, I'm not opposed to drug use, but I actually am opposed to drug use that is harmful to the person. And I don't want that person to continue living a life where they're harmed, and suffering and experiencing consequences, the exact definition of addiction, you're experiencing consequences from your behaviour, you know you're experiencing consequences from your behaviour. You don't make effort to change or even if you do make effort to change, you fail. 

Daniel Snyder  12:42 

I mean, you're, you've confirmed you're in an addiction pattern, right? So we need to take, I, I guess I'm always considering where do I self censor? I actually had a phone interview with a reporter the other day, and it was a tough, it was a tough one, because he was asking questions about safe supply and I could tell he was coming from the more, more uh. He was opposed to it as an idea. And certainly through the the time of the conversation, it was clear that a lot of his ideas were just couched in the fundamental concept that using drugs is always bad, period. And that they're... so I'm, I'm having this conversation with him. And technically, we're on opposite sides of the issue. But I constantly find myself agreeing with the flaws that he points out. 

Daniel Snyder  13:49 

And I think I guess for me, it's worth the flaws. Like I think that yeah, I know that if we, if we did all the things that I dreamed about for, am dreaming about for drug policy right now. And the way in my great imagination, I think we could make it perfect, right? Still, people will get addicted. People have problems with drugs, people will overdose and die, no matter what, like this is a reality that we will have to deal with, in our societies forever.  

Daniel Snyder  14:22 

So, again, when I look at our approaches and my thinking on it, it's not about finding perfect solutions. It's constantly about reducing harm. So we're always trying to implement harm reduction policies. And I guess this is where the conflict really lands is that policies are separate from people. And when I think about policies, I actually am not thinking about people at all. I'm thinking about data. I'm thinking about statistics. I'm thinking about broad macro ideas. And I don't like that, right?  

Daniel Snyder  15:05 

Like, I'm conflicted. Because I mean, maybe it's my lane, my calling is the bigger picture, the macro, to think of this as a, as the broad policies that can fix this. But, you know, last week when it was minus two, and I was out at the overdose prevention tent at 8:30 at night, and there's guys there using the service without proper clothing, it's freezing cold. They're wet, you know, they haven't showered, they don't have proper access to a washroom. I mean, the, their drug use is necessary at this point in time. Like, seriously, if you take that away from that person, they'll, how do they survive? And mean I look at the way addiction is existing.  

Daniel Snyder  15:27 

And we can some assumptions and judge stereotypes, typing here, like in a person like that, a homeless person who I saw suffering in that way. And I'd say I never had that experience, not even close. I had so much. For like, if it was possible that I might be sleeping outside. And it was. I mean, even on a nice warm summer day, when people voluntarily choose to sleep outside- 

Lucas Akai  16:00 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  16:01 

-they go camping, these crazy weirdos. But, you know, even then I would have had some family or friend that would be like, "Oh, my gosh, get in here," you know, we'll... "you gotta, we'll take care of you for the night.," right? Like, and I, or I would have a sob story that was sufficient to pull on some heartstrings, right? Like I always had that kind of access- 

Lucas Akai  16:50 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  16:50 

-to safety. And so when I'm talking to this person, how do you... how can I think about, I want to think about the policies that will help them, but those policies will not be at- this person will be dead by the time those policies are implemented. And this is the collateral damage of this crisis, is that we're missing, we're losing sight of the people.  

Daniel Snyder  17:15 

And if we develop policies that fail to create more connection in our culture and more connection in our society to meet with people. And that it's, yeah, I'm not judging you. I'm, you're okay right where you're at today. But just so you know, there's also potential in you, and there's hope for a better life, if you, if you want it, you could choose it, I would be willing to help you take steps towards it. And if we adopted more of a mentality about, of incremental change, is how people actually change, right? In life, all of life. Everything happens incrementally.  

Daniel Snyder  17:57 

Anything that you want to do, you do step by step, and we can break it down, you know, big steps. You got to take, you got to graduate from university. Well, yeah, but you know, that's a few years out, you got to take a semester first, oh, you got to take one course, oh, you actually just have to go to the first class. Right? And we can keep breaking this down. You just need to call an advisor and talk to them.  

Daniel Snyder  18:30 

And...but we don't talk about moving forward in life in this way. And so it's so overwhelming, and we've got a culture now that's anxious all the time. That's high, high levels of depression, suicide is skyrocketing. All of these other like, the turmoil that people are living in, where they're not finding rest and peace, in their heart, they're purposeless, their lives are meaningless, they really have no direction. Like, this is what it feels like all around me when I talk to people, when I interact with people. And so, I mean, drug use, like compulsive problematic drug use doesn't surprise me at all, in the human experience. And when I look at a culture like ours, it actually makes really even more sense. We are an isolated culture that's not... 

Daniel Snyder  19:21 

We're individualistic, right? We look at so many other cultures that are more collective and, and family, you know, family oriented, and they care for the elders and they care for the young ones and the multi-generational units are closer together. It seems that they have far less of these struggles, right? I mean, being reductive here, but that's like one component of what seems to be problematic in North America is that we have this runaway train. You know, feedback loops, people in toxic cycles.  

Daniel Snyder  19:56 

So we treat the symptoms here, we prescribe medication, we prescribe massive amounts of antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications, none of which fix anything, right? They just mask problems. And we have a, you know, a society that's fully masked. And it's going to, the wheels are falling off, it seems. This is a total rant and off topic. I'll stop there.  

Lucas Akai  20:20 

No, no worries. And you actually mentioned several things which we can take and bring back a little bit is, of course, you have your own experiences with opioid use, negative and positive. And you also mentioned that, you know, the wheels are coming off and to some extent, you know, it's being masked, right? And so last week, you mentioned that there was maybe a glazing over a, not necessarily disregard, but like ignoring to some extent of maybe the negative effects of opioid use within the peer space, activist space? Maybe would you like to elaborate more on that aspect? And how that affects you with your own work and your own experiences? 

Daniel Snyder  21:10 

Um...Yeah, well, I think that that's maybe a side effect of the type of advocacy I was already talking about where, you know, we got to get- where we get really hyper intensely focused on validating the person and wanting to bring peers into the conversation, wanting their input, like, my experience, right? I mean, it's it's asked for from, and it's valued. And we've created a system that says, "hey, if you have lived experience," and with all sorts of, this is, this is a movement in our culture, right? Where lived experience is being valued in a way that was not previously.  

Daniel Snyder  21:51 

And so I think, partially, we're figuring out what that looks like, and how to incorporate that into our, into our research, how to incorporate that into our services, so that peers, people with lived experience are, are contributing in that way. And I... I mean, is it, is it.. Is it okay to say that, like, it's possible that toxic ways of thinking and mindsets can exist in cohorts of human beings? Period, end sentence, right?  

Daniel Snyder  22:27 

So it doesn't matter who those people are, a group of peers, or group of so-called doctor experts, a group of addiction professionals, they get caught in an echo chamber of their way and style of thinking. I mean, I noticed it for myself, especially, you can really notice it online, when you pay attention to your social media feed. If you agree with every single thing that comes up, and you're like pressing like on everything, then you're in a dangerous echo chamber, where you're not getting the other side of the story.  

Daniel Snyder  23:00 

You know, you need to see things that you disagree with. But I feel like we've stopped challenging people with the opposite, like, we can't have a rational conversation. So you know, you have a group of peers that are, like we have a group of peers that are part of our, our committee, they participate in meetings, they do service work, they do other, other, engage in other things, they offer their input, thoughts and ideas to the projects and, that we're working on. And some of them are in active addiction, they're using substances on a daily basis, or [it's] certainly noticeable that they use before a meeting.  

Daniel Snyder  23:46 

So, they may be in an intoxicated state during the meeting. This is not uncommon. And I mean, I actually am not opposed to people being intoxicated in meetings, I can tell you, I've done that many times in my life, right? But, you know, you could think about it, too, in the context of like the, it was really common for people to head to lunch and drink alcohol at lunchtime in the business world, I think it's a little less common, right? And actually, most people are fine with that. And it's pretty reasonable for a person to be able to have one or two drinks and then continue functioning relatively at their their normal capacity, right? 

Daniel Snyder  24:27 

 And so you know, if someone wanted to use drugs before a meeting than they could possibly do and take an amount that would prevent them from being totally obliterated and still able to participate, right? Titrate your dose, think about how much you're taking. What, why am I kind of on a tangent here a bit today, but...Um, why am I saying this?  

Daniel Snyder  24:54 

The... There's not a, there's not a real space to challenge this and say, "hey, you know, that's really not okay. Because you're not here when you do that." "Oh, oh, are you criticising drug use? Are you opposed to my, my lifestyle?" It's, it's really difficult to navigate and, you know, again, I mean, I've had one on one conversations with a person when it's a problem and, and, you know, they, they comprehend they understand but if the behaviour continues, then you know it, we got to get punitive and the hierarchy is established, I'm telling you what you can and can't do and, and then, you know, peers often feel that they're treated like tokens, like, you know, I'm only here because I'm, I'm required to be here, right?  

Daniel Snyder  25:52 

And like, I was in a meeting and it's a peer counsel, they're supposed to provide input. That's the purpose and, you know, one of the questions was, from a recent research that was done, and they wanted our opinion on the icons, the logo, kind of symbols that appear within the report just to make sure that they weren't stigmatising, or that they accurately represented drug use and, and stuff.  

Daniel Snyder  26:26 

So like, I feel like, okay, I can give you my opinion on that. Sure. Like, maybe it's, maybe I have a different perspective than some dude who's never, you know, done any drugs in his life, but a lot of people that participated in that felt just, you know, like, tokens, right? Like, it was to them, it was beneath them. It was, it was like, "like what, that's all I'm good for? Just tell you if your icons are stigmatising, like, what's the research about? Shit? Do you want my opinion on how your research and how you went about it? And if you're," you know, so there's another thing where I'm torn.  

Daniel Snyder  27:09 

 And if I turn into a pissy, angry, you know, "I'm tired of being used as a token" and you know, just kind of going on a rant, which is, that exists, right? In this space. There's people that are, they're [...] rough around the edges, they're raw, and they don't self censor, they don't. What's that term? You know, they have no filter, everything comes out, right?  

Daniel Snyder  27:09 

Like, I land a little bit on both sides of the issue, I think my attitude to approaching that is, I'm going to cordially, politely participate in every meeting and every [op], interact as, as respectfully as I can with every person that I come across in this space. Because I never know when the person I interact with next is going to be the stepping stone to real change to, to being the person who can push new policy through or to being the person who, you know, wants to take me under their wing and give me a new opportunity or hire me for a new job. Like I never know what opportunities exist. 

Daniel Snyder  28:15 

Maybe we, well, we probably do need those people. And they probably are catalysts towards change in certain regards, right? And so, I think about it in in, you know, that's not maybe me. It's not the way I want to really operate. I see both perspectives. I see the value maybe in both perspectives. But, what it does is it creates camps, it creates division, it creates people who are the recovery people, and people who are the harm reduction people, as if they're in opposition or something to one another. Which really, is strange.  

Daniel Snyder  28:49 

Because if you ask the you know, either camp "Hey, do you? Do you want people to suffer with addictions?" "Well no," no, both of them, "No." "Do you want people to die and overdose?" "Well, no, we don't." "Do you want people to be able to recover?" "Well, yes, we do." "Do you want people to be treated with dignity and humanity and respect?" And yet, "oh so we all agree on all these issues?"  What's the problem here, right?  

Daniel Snyder  29:12 

Like, and I talked to, I know from my own story, and then many people I know personally, who have recovered from their past addiction. It was a combination of harm reduction principles, and recovery principles that work together to get us to, you know, a new life.  

Daniel Snyder  29:35 

And there were seasons in my life, like I mentioned before, you know, where, where harm reduction was a more dominant force at work at that time. You know, when I was on Suboxone, during various seasons of just kind of trying to reduce drug use as opposed to being actively trying to stop. So, that we're changing alcohol consumption from hard liquor to beer, those kinds of things, I engaged with for seasons, and they were part of the process, right? And then, and then there was more abstinence-oriented recovery, stuff that I also engaged in willingly and intentionally. 

Daniel Snyder  30:21 

So, and you know, again, that highlights the theme of incremental change, right? People are in process and you try different things. And I mean, we got to give people the space to do that. To try different things, you know, we can't prescribe a fix. I can't take your life and say, here's how you fix it. You try different things. And I guess, we would love it to be simpler or something, right? That's what society thinks is that oh, treatment, it should be so simple, you know, to do step one, and maybe the 12 steps are to blame seriously for addiction. Recovery is not 12 freakin' steps. Life is not 12 steps like, so. Yeah. Okay. 

Lucas Akai  31:09 

No, no worries. And so you mentioned that you often feel torn in a lot of ways with, maybe, the echo chamber nature of some aspects of like, not taking criticism within the peer space. And so as that kind of grows in its scope, let's say like with decriminalisation, right, and all these new policies that are being discussed, do you find that for yourself, it might prove to be a bigger struggle in the future? Something that might deter you from peer work where, you know, you can't say certain things or you have to say certain things that you might not agree with? 

Daniel Snyder  31:50 

Yeah, I've contemplated this. And I have wondered if a time would come where I mean, if the evidence pointed me towards certain policies are failing, and people are still trying to push them, then I would, I would have to really reassess. Now, I think that I would always want to be an advocate in this space, because my bottom line, my goal, is hope and recovery, like keeping people alive.  

Daniel Snyder  32:16 

Why do I want to keep people alive? Well, not so they can be miserable in their drug addictions for the rest of their life. I'm acutely aware, there's some people that use drugs for fun, and they're never going to have problems. And I know that that exists. I know people, they don't actually use drugs, I just know them so well I could say if you tried cocaine, if you tried heroin, you'd probably have a really great time, you'd enjoy it. But I guarantee you, you'd never get addicted.  

Daniel Snyder  32:44 

They just have so much other things in their life that are more meaningful and more important and more valuable to them, that the cognitive separation between, you know, "I'm suddenly going to go full force into using cocaine every day in my life, or as often as possible until I go bankrupt and ruin all my relationships" It's just not a possibility. And there's that, that. So that exists, right?  

Daniel Snyder  33:07 

But the other, why do I want to keep people alive? Well, not to be miserable for the rest of their life, obviously, because I hope that they can change. And what does that mean? It means that they, we need systems and services in place to help them recover. So if I... If it comes clear, that safe supply, I don't actually think this would be the result of research over time.  

Daniel Snyder  33:37 

But, if the research suddenly showed, everybody that gets on safe, supply, stays addicted, and they all, they all are miserable still, no one is as entered treatment, and they're all just getting free drugs. And for 10 years. It's, we've only added people to the programme. No one's ever got off the programme. I'd be like, well, this is a bad policy, we're prolonging people's misery.  

Daniel Snyder  34:03 

And then the argument, the argument from the other side would be well, there'll be more miserable when we take it away from them. And actually, yeah, I mean, I agree with that, too. So again, back to being torn and recognising that these policies aren't perfect, but I don't think that the outcome that I hypothesise would ever come to pass. I think we would be pretty surprised at what safe supply could do. But, on the issue of safe supply, the system as it would roll out, maybe provincially, strictly as a response for people with severe addiction, I think we're talking about a very small cohort that would qualify.  

Daniel Snyder  34:48 

And, you know, that's where I would personally be, have pretty...be one of those advocates that has more hard barriers around something like that. Whereas a lot of advocates would be more inclined to, like, completely demedicalizing it, basically, treating it like it just a free for all. Wow, that's probably wrong when people run without terminology, making it less, less barriers, right, more much more easily accessible. 

Daniel Snyder  35:18 

And [...] yeah, I mean, when I, you know, one thing that gives me a lot of hope. And that's a really important component to this. And it's hard to articulate this as, as a significant part of the addiction story that people [...] that people experience. So, most of the time, we're so preoccupied with the drugs and the drugs being a problem, we don't think about the peripheral things that are... that go around that and that are, you know, hand in hand with the drug use. 

Daniel Snyder  35:51 

And one component is the rituals around obtaining and using your drug of choice. And so, those are exceptionally time consuming. And also, like there is, there's a lot going on in the brain and body, in the anticipatory moments leading up to drug use. More than I could, I can comprehend. There's, you know, good scientists who have done lots of research on dopamine and anticipation, and Andrew Huberman is a good one, he's got lots of podcasts.  

Daniel Snyder  36:28 

And, you know, so the ritual is like central to the experience. And, and if you take that away from from person, actually, they lose a lot more, you think, oh, they still have the drugs. When the ritual comes [and] gets taken away from the person, they lose a lot more than they, you know, anticipate.  

Daniel Snyder  36:51 

So, it's Switzerland, where they did the, you know, the compassion club with the heroin programme, but basically, people with severe heroin addictions, were enrolled into this programme, where they were able to get as much heroin as they wanted on a daily basis.  

Lucas Akai  37:06 

Right. 

Daniel Snyder  37:06 

And so it is, essentially, the ritual is taken away, there's no need to obtain funds, right? So what does that involve? For a lot of people, that's a lot of hustle. That can be prostitution, obviously, for women. That can be petty crime and theft, or even more organised crime, of course, involving yourself in gangs, et cetera, et cetera, right? So the person no longer has to do that job, take their drugs, so that could alleviate, if you're homeless, you know, homeless people will state that they spend as much as like 18 hours a day, sometimes on the, you know, in the mission of obtaining more drugs, right? So, they don't, that's a lot of free, extra free time. If you don't have to do that every single day, right?  

Daniel Snyder  37:55 

You also don't have, kind of, the same sacred, ritualistic, spiritual experience that you've created with your drug use. If you go from the more illicit way of using to a more pharmaceutical or medical way. So, people could debate that, like, you know, there obviously, is a debate, if we're providing you with the safe supply, your drug of choice is heroin and your mode of consumption is smoking. Should we not also give you a pharmaceutical alternative peer that you could smoke? Or are we only going to give you a pill that you can swallow? Or I guess, if you wanted to grind up and snort? 

Lucas Akai  38:36 

Right.  

Daniel Snyder  38:38 

And so, you know, you would, that would be a debate, which form of drug do we provide for the person? I guess I would be inclined to say, go to the form that's the least risky, which would be ingestion of pills. Because you take ritual out of it, and you take risk out of it. But I'm infringing on the rights... Am I?  Where are we infringing on the rights of the drug user at this point, telling them? No, this is what you get. I mean, I think governments do have some responsibility to reduce the harms in the markets.  

Daniel Snyder  39:13 

And I mean, obviously, they failed. Hence, fentanyl is the drug, the primary drug driving this crisis. If we regulated and brought drugs into a legal regulated market, you know, people might assume that that means we would have fentanyl available for sale in a regulated market. I actually don't think so. I don't think there would even really be much demand for fentanyl. If any, the demand would be very, very limited.  

Daniel Snyder  39:45 

And the vast majority of people would prefer diacetylmorphine or heroin or maybe, hydromorphone, which are significantly milder alternatives. And we see this obviously with alcohol too, the vast majority of people prefer low alcohol beers and wines, and a small minority want harder 40% alcohol whiskey or rum or gin. And, and you know what, there is an even smaller minority that want like moonshine 85 or 90% of super pure, just nothing but alcohol. 

Daniel Snyder  40:21 

But the government's like, no, there's no good reason to sell this. There's not enough demand, there's not even enough demand for a black market, really. Not much of one to exist for moonshine, because most people don't want that drug. They want something a little more reasonable, right?  

Daniel Snyder  40:40 

And so, you assume every time that you go into prohibition, that that drug shows up in the black market, but actually, you know, human beings like good drugs, not bad drugs. And what I mean by that is literally, some drugs are truly inferior. For example, in the 60s, a very popular psychiatric drug was barbiturates. And barbituates are terrible drugs. They have a lot of side effects. Thgovernment was like- and we came up with better things, right? We came up with benzodiazepines. 

Daniel Snyder  41:14 

So, what did the government do? They basically said, barbiturates are off. They're illegal, and we're not prescribing them. And, you know, we're not regulating them anymore. And and what happened? No black market for barbiturates, because nobody wants them, because it's a terrible drug, right?  

Daniel Snyder  41:31 

So people, markets will sort themselves out for preference and for demand, for user demand. And that's why it's such a head scratcher that we haven't resolved this with fentanyl. Because truly, it's a supply-lead influx of the drug, into the drug supply. It's not by demand, demand interest has, has changed. But, that was forced, it was forced change, right? People were forced to like fentanyl, they didn't have a choice, right?  

Daniel Snyder  42:04 

And over time, if more alternatives were made available, milder alternatives, actually, everyone, virtually everyone would wean themselves off fentanyl, and do other opioids. And this has been, this has been researched. Markets have proven this time and time again. I mean, it's evident in our, in our alcohol market. So it's really, really interesting. 

Lucas Akai  42:26 

But you know, again, every time though, [indiscernable] you mentioned your own conflict. And you mentioned that, um, you know, of course, the ideas you have may not be the ideas that other peers share. And we talked about the divide there. Have you found up to this point, and we talked like in the future. Up to this point, have you found that to be a conflict? Or maybe within the committees that you're on [indiscernable]? Have you found that to be a conflict? [indiscernable] 

Daniel Snyder  42:37 

Not a big one, or not like a serious problem. You know, where, where it's interesting is, where I actually have some, maybe, authority is the right word, like in terms of the messaging, and the way we align ourselves as a community, you know, in a sense. And I wasn't directly appointed, I wasn't elected. But, you know, in a sense, I'm a bit of a gatekeeper for the messaging that comes through this committee. And I think that people have entrusted me with that responsibility. And people have the freedom certainly to criticise it, if they see a problem. I want to be vulnerable in that way.  

Daniel Snyder  43:41 

I want to not be a dictator, or, you know, if people in our committee were like, hey, your viewpoint on this issue is out of line. Then I, I would want to be one who listens to that. But, you know, so, I have ideas, also, that people don't agree with my ideas, right? But no, they're not my ideas, ideas I'm aligned with.  

Daniel Snyder  44:07 

So one of them, for instance, is that there is a lot of conversation about people thinking that the person who supplied the drugs at an overdose should be tried for murder. That they are, they are murderers. Okay. And this is more prominent in America. This, I mean, Trump, just, uh, in his eelcome back tour, what's he planning on doing? Speech? In 2024? He said that he wants to execute drug dealers. Okay. So, I mean, it's Trump, so everyone kind of chuckles because no one believes this is possible. That this could ever happen. But I mean, I assume he's serious. 

Daniel Snyder  44:57 

But this is the- this is an idea. If you provided the drugs to a person, therefore you're responsible for their death. And I disagree with that. I don't think that that is a solution to the crisis that further criminalises people, it ignores the fact that the vast majority of like street level drug use is drug users selling to other users. It's the fact that friends use together and friend passed his other friend, substances. It's the fact that, you know, all of these dynamics, and if you criminalise and make a person a murderer, I think I...I know why people like this policy. Because it's almost always pushed by the parents and loved ones, direct family members of someone who has already died. Right? So I mean, is it, is it a revenge policy? Is it meant to make you feel better about your child or your loved ones death?  

Daniel Snyder  46:03 

It doesn't fix the overdose crisis, it doesn't make the person who supplied the drugs life any better, doesn't improve their the possibility for their outcomes, doesn't bring your child, friend back from the dead. It, it doesn't save anybody. It costs taxpayers and jams up the justice system. I mean, it's problematic on every level, but I have people around me who think it's a good idea.  

Daniel Snyder  46:31 

And so, you know, for instance, we have a community event. And we draw everyone in front of the community, and this includes committee members, but it also includes advocates and allies who are in the space, but maybe not directly part of our committee. I mean, we're not the only one that exists, there's lots of people doing work, and might have different ideas and you know, they want to put their signs up, or speak from the stage. It's like, I don't want to censor other people's ideas that I don't like. But I mean, some of them, when you're an organisation, you have to kind of take a stand on certain things sometimes, too, right?  

Daniel Snyder  47:22 

We're a pretty loose organisation grassroots, thankfully, we don't have to deal with maybe the, like, we don't have a human resources department, or some way of fixing these issues will be fixed through relationship. And, and that's it, right? Like there's no, no other way. One person wanting to put a sign up, and it says, you know, addiction is a disease. 

Daniel Snyder  47:51 

It's not really worth making an issue over this. I mean, I don't know if I told the committee how many people in our committee think addiction is a disease? How many don't? I think it would be... I think more people would think it's a disease, I think, probably like, it would be like, 75-25 just guessing. So I'd be in the minority. Right?  

Daniel Snyder  48:15 

And now, am I gonna block this person from putting their sign on the stage? Because I don't agree with that viewpoint, even though maybe three quarters of our committee actually does and, and what is my manipulative angle to ensure that it doesn't go on stage? Or, or am I just being pragmatic?  

Daniel Snyder  48:35 

So you know, what I [...] at first, you know, I thought I maybe should make a big deal out of it. And then I realised I'm, I'm a little petty sometimes, and that it would be better to let be able to let things go. And it's not always helpful to force my opinion on every issue, is a real problem for me. But the, you know, I just, how do I navigate that? Right? Do I believe in my core? If I believe it in my core of my being, am I- am I like, am I violating myself in some way?  

Lucas Akai  49:10 

There was an inner balance there. For sure.  

Daniel Snyder  49:10 

But yeah, I think I was able to let that go and just realise we need to be if anyone, like, if I'm blocking different ideas, then, you know, I'm, I'm no better than anyone else, obviously, who I think is blocking difficult ideas. That's probably a never ending tension, right? Like, I don't know, [indiscernable]. So.  

Daniel Snyder  49:19 

Yeah.  

Lucas Akai  49:20 

But then so now, earlier today, you mentioned that you had an interview with another media network. So when you do these types of more formal interviews, and maybe they're, as you said, they approach these conversations with their own ideas, their own agendas, maybe this, how do you navigate that when you're conducting those types of interviews? When you have your own set of ideas that might clash? Knowing that that will go public eventually. 

Daniel Snyder  50:03 

.Yeah, I feel I failed to prepare sufficiently. And because I end up just being myself, every time. And I think I'm just gonna have to accept the way that it comes out. I, I didn't get a tremendous sense from that last interview that the reporter was especially going to be genuine with how my views were represented. And I felt a little more like I was going to be, you know, quoted, like, he's going to pull out the tidbits he liked, maybe not even particularly in context.  

Daniel Snyder  50:42 

And, you know, that puts your back up a little bit against the wall, because this is how reductive things often get in our society, right? A soundbite is pulled out. Daniel said this, therefore, this is, this is how Daniel thinks. This is like, I never think one way about any one thing for very long periods of time it seems, right? Like, I'm always trying to evolve my thinking. And I mean, even 15 minutes after that interview ended, I'm like, oh, you know, I probably could have adjusted this, it made more, I should send that guy an email just clarifying my position on this. 

Lucas Akai  51:23 

Right.  

Daniel Snyder  51:23 

And this is, so this is the world we live in. And I think that helps, really helps me be like less quick to judge public figures, who are polarising, because I know that there's, there's two sides to the story, you know, you could look at, like, Elon Musk. And obviously, there's multiple sides to a story with a guy like this. He's complicated figure. Some people seem to love them, some people seem to hate them. And I mean, they're probably both wrong, because he's probably a relatively normal human being with a bunch of human issues. 

Daniel Snyder  51:59 

And he's probably a little more in the middle of all this, but he has a public persona, that's not a real person. This is a publicly created figure collectively created [by] our, our internet and media sources have created this person. You have an idea of who he is, I have an idea of who he is, we're, we're all wrong. Unless you happen to have met them and spend time with them. So, and even then maybe you're only getting the public facing version.  

Lucas Akai  52:29 

Right. Right. Right. 

Daniel Snyder  52:30 

So, you know, I guess we just have to accept this. I hope other people are smart enough to see through it. I hope people don't reject me for having bad ideas. Because I think, how do we- how do we come to good ideas, you have to talk about your ideas, and that means some of them are going to be bad. And maybe we find some good ones in there, right? 

Daniel Snyder  52:53 

But, you know, I, I know of advocates that have blocked me. I don't know why, I don't- I couldn't explain their reasoning. But, you know, maybe just I had a different idea at one point in time, I might not even hold that idea still. But that person's lost out on my evolution, my growth, my change because they decided to, you know, I wasn't in line with their marching orders at the time, right? 

Lucas Akai  53:21 

And so maybe thing on that, and not necessarily marching orders, but a public persona. So when you do your own public talks, do you find that because of the space that you're in, because of the nature of the peer message, that you're having to model yourself in a certain way, in those times? 

Daniel Snyder  53:41 

I can't fake it. Although I would like to be able to, I'm envious of people who can, you know, put on a really good performance, I feel like I performed my whole life in terms of trying to hide, and so when that like, when that came to an end for me and is like, okay, you're, you're going to embrace vulnerability, you have to, in order to really survive. For me, that was that was key. It forced me to kind of be more authentic all the time.  

Daniel Snyder  54:12 

And so yeah, maybe I don't always filter as well as I could or would/should, maybe I'm a little more raw in moments, because I'm going through something, right? I was going through some stuff in the summer, and it was just a little more intense. And I noticed that, you know, there was an opportunity to really try and perform and, and you do that. I mean, you got to be socially respectable in society, right?  

Daniel Snyder  54:42 

But, but, you know, when I talk to people, it comes out. I'm not one of those people who you're like, hey, how you doing? I'm like, I'm fine, if I'm not fine. I'll tell you I'm not fine and if- hopefully you have follow up questions. Are you seriously asking or no? Oh, okay. 

Lucas Akai  55:07 

So do you find yourself, maybe, in one on one, when you are talking to these people, I imagine is pretty much the same thing. and it's just, it's your opinions, your ideas? And your advice, maybe? And you don't model so much based on what might be the common denominator? 

Daniel Snyder  55:25 

Yeah, I think, I mean, for me, just trying to, I'm just trying to be authentic in any given moment. And, and not forget about the people in front of me, like, what is going on with them. And I mean, and I fail at this constantly. You know, last week, when we were wrapping up the tents, one night, it was cold. And there was a guy there, and he was, in a moment of vulnerability, started opening up a little bit, he was talking to one of our other peers, colleagues that was there.  

Daniel Snyder  56:05 

And I was cold. And I was a little tired, and it was late, and my hands were freezing. And I really let that physiological uncomfort, discomfort robbed me from caring about people in that moment. Like, I was just, I just, really, I just wanted to get home and get warm. And you know, when you say that out, it's like, that dude is not going home. And he's not getting warm tonight, right?  

Daniel Snyder  56:37 

It's kind of how do you- how do I reconcile this, you know? Like, should I feel guilt or shame? Am I a terrible person? Like, should I just stay out there and be cold all night and just suffer as well like, just to equalise? Stupid idea... Like, you know, these thoughts are like, it's just unfair. It's just not right. It's just. And also, I know that I'm really limited in like, what I can do, I'm one person, I have strengths and weaknesses. I'm actually not the most, you know, gracious, caring, like person in the world. Like, the compassion doesn't come organically to me. It's- I got a, I gotta- it exists, but it exists that like, this macro level, like the injustice bothers me.  

Daniel Snyder  57:30 

Oh, sorry, I don't really have time to sit with you for 20 minutes, right? Which is, you know, those are my own inner things that I'm sorting out in this space, right? And then, you know, i'm like, oh, well, what are my strengths? Oh, well, I'm, I'm actually more of an administrator and a planner and idea person and an organiser. And, and so, you know, that's where, where I'm good. And I can plan the people, the volunteers and get them to show up and I can make sure the supplies are there.  

Daniel Snyder  58:02 

And, and I'm disappointed by my weakness at being like, a human interaction person that's there, providing the care, here, I am talking to you about the importance of human connection and how really, it's the key to overcoming addiction. And I have this personal tendency to be more just involved with systems and, and neglecting people. It's like, so we're all broken problems trying to fix a broken world. And somehow we have to figure out where our strengths and weaknesses can work together.  

Daniel Snyder  58:41 

And I can, I can be okay with, you know, who I am and doing what I can do, and not, you know, go home that night and be consumed by guilt, because I'm not the most perfect, caring person in the world, right? 

Esther Cheung  58:59 

We each have our own capacity, right? So we do what we can.  

Daniel Snyder  59:03 

Yeah.  

Esther Cheung  59:04 

Well, maybe this is a good time to wrap up. We're almost at time. 

Daniel Snyder  59:09 

Yeah, thank you. 

Esther Cheung  59:09 

Is there any last thoughts that you want to get off your chest about the things we've talked about today? 

Daniel Snyder  59:16 

No, that was really good. It was really helpful conversation actually, even for me, right? Like, so I like, appreciate you bringing out maybe the more difficult inner turmoil stuff that exists here in this space, because a lot of times that is neglected. And you know, we have maybe talked about or maybe we did, the burnout, exhaustion, the fatigue that that people working in this space feel, and and how to cope with that, right? So. 

Caitlin Burritt  59:49 

That brings us to the end of this episode of the Unsilencing Stories podcast. To listen to more interviews in the series, please go to www.unsilencingstories.com. And if you'd like to share your thoughts on the episode, message us at unsilencingstories@gmail.com. Thank you for listening.