The sentencing of 68-year-old Ronald Schilling has reignited concerns over British Columbia’s safer supply drug programme. In early May, a court sentenced Schilling, a Nanaimo, B.C. resident, to three years in prison for trafficking drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine. He trafficked government-supplied opioids originally intended for patients under B.C.’s safer supply programme. This controversial case has once again highlighted the issue of safer supply drugs trafficking.

The Case of Ronald Schilling

Two years ago, authorities apprehended Schilling during a drug bust and discovered over 80 bottles of government-prescribed opioid pills in his possession, all clearly labelled for other patients. These opioids had been dispensed under B.C.’s safer supply programme, a scheme designed to provide pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs in hopes of preventing overdose deaths.

Instead of taking their prescribed opioids, some patients turned to Schilling to trade them for harder street drugs like fentanyl, which he also dealt. Schilling then sold these diverted safer supply drugs to other buyers, operating a mid-level trafficking enterprise under the nickname “Upside Down Inc.” complete with business cards.

“Mr. Schilling preyed upon people who were taking the safe supply drug,” said Provincial Court Judge Karen Whonnock during his sentencing. Schilling’s case establishes yet another example of safer supply drugs not always being used as intended.

The Problem of Safer Supply Drugs Trafficking

Schilling’s actions highlight a troubling issue within the programme. Earlier this year, a provincial report revealed that over 60 pharmacies in B.C. orchestrated schemes, offering cash or rewards to patients and encouraging them to fill unnecessary prescriptions for safer supply drugs, then selling those drugs on the black market.

Collen Middleton, co-founder of the Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association, has been critical of the programme, calling safer supply medications “the perfect consumer product” because of their addictive nature. According to Middleton, the description of these drugs as “safe” creates an opening for dealers to exploit vulnerable communities. “It brings more people into using addictive drugs,” Middleton argued, criticising the perception that these prescription drugs are risk-free.

How B.C. Is Responding to the Crisis

The B.C. Ministry of Health acknowledges the gravity of the safer supply drugs trafficking problem. A statement from the ministry underscored their aim to reduce the risks associated with diverted medications while still maintaining the programme’s core objectives.

Among their responses is the introduction of stricter protocols for dispensing prescription opioids, such as requiring most patients to consume doses under professional supervision. Known as witnessed dosing, this practice aims to deter misuse of prescribed drugs.

Conflicting Views on Safer Supply Programmes

B.C.’s government has consistently defended the safer supply programme, citing studies that highlight its potential to lower overdose deaths. A recent study in The Lancet Public Health showed short-term health benefits like fewer overdoses and hospital visits for participants. However, a population-level study in JAMA Health Forum showed no tangible decrease in overdose deaths or overall harm, raising questions about the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Where the debate grows sharpest is in the differing perspectives on safer supply drugs that are diverted into wider communities. Perry Kendall, B.C.’s former provincial health officer, has taken an unconventional stance. Kendall suggested that the diversion of such drugs may reduce harm, as they displace more dangerous street substances. “Replacing street drugs with safer pharmaceutical alternatives could meet people’s needs while reducing their risk of a toxic overdose,” he said.

However, those who oppose Kendall’s viewpoint, like Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog, argue that these programmes inherently enable dealers to exploit gaps in policy enforcement. Krog contended, “If we make it easier for the wolves to successfully exploit the sheep, is that a good thing?”

Why This Matters

The misuse of safer supply drugs creates a ripple effect. Programmes originally intended to reduce harm may inadvertently create new problems, such as a black market for diverted drugs and new avenues for dealers. These complications not only undermine B.C.’s safer supply initiative but introduce significant risks to the wider community.

At the heart of the debate lies an enduring dilemma. Can safer supply programmes successfully reduce harm without creating opportunities for illegal activity? The mixed evidence illustrates that while individual cases like Schilling’s are deeply troubling, blanket solutions may be difficult to implement.

Source: Breaking Needles