The Misguided Blame on Progressive Policies in Vancouver's Crisis

Progressive Policies Are Not the Problem

Amy Hamm’s recent article in the National Post paints a stark portrayal of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, describing a grim world of tent encampments, addiction, and violence. She attributes this suffering to the failures of progressive policies that have been implemented, like harm reduction and drug decriminalization, asserting that Canada’s “free-drug utopia” has only exacerbated the crisis. Hamm claims, “No Canadian belongs in a padlocked tent, fighting to keep rats at bay, languishing—at terrible risk of dying—on a waitlist for drug treatment.” Her critique reflects a growing narrative among conservatives that progressivism has failed our most vulnerable. 

It’s an argument that appeals to frustration, urgency, and those seeking an easy scapegoat,  but it falls apart under scrutiny. The reality is far more complex; the root causes of crises—systemic inequality, housing unaffordability and the lack of meaningful social support—are precisely what progressive policies aim to address. Hamm’s claim ignores the systemic root causes of homelessness and addiction and misrepresents the intent and impact of progressive policies. Far from creating the crisis, these policies are among the most effective tools we have to address it. If anything, the tragedy of the Downtown Eastside reflects a failure to go far enough and not the failure of progress itself.

The Reality of Harm Reduction

Harm reduction strategies have attracted misguided criticism, with detractors like Hamm arguing that they “enable” drug use rather than solving addiction. These critics misrepresent what harm reduction is—and what it isn’t. Harm reduction doesn’t condone or promote drug use; it seeks to minimize its most devastating consequences while offering pathways to recovery.

Take supervised consumption sites, for example. These facilities allow people to use drugs in a safe, medically supervised environment, preventing overdoses and reducing the spread of infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. The evidence is overwhelming: studies in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside show that Insite, Canada’s first supervised consumption site, has reduced overdose deaths by 35% in its vicinity. Moreover, users of supervised consumption sites are more likely to seek addiction treatment compared to those who rely on street use.

Similarly, safe supply programs provide pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to toxic street drugs, protecting people from the unpredictable and often lethal contents of the illicit drug market. Hamm’s claim that these programs contribute to chaos ignores their life-saving impact. With over 2,000 British Columbians dying from overdoses annually, can we really afford to abandon these measures?

Hamm also criticizes drug decriminalization, calling it a “scandalously terrible” experiment. Yet, decriminalization is not about surrendering to drug use; it’s about shifting the focus from punishment to support. In Portugal, where drug decriminalization was implemented in 2001, overdose deaths plummeted, and drug-related HIV infections fell. Crucially, people with substance use disorders were connected to treatment rather than cycled through the criminal justice system.

While imperfect, British Columbia’s decriminalization pilot project is a step toward this evidence-based model. Critics like Hamm fail to acknowledge that criminalizing drug use doesn’t deter it—it merely drives it underground, making it more dangerous and harder to address.

The Real Root Cause: Housing Inequality

Even Hamm concedes that housing affordability is a critical issue, but her article stops short of interrogating the economic forces driving the crisis. Vancouver’s housing market is among the most expensive in the world, with average rents for a one-bedroom apartment exceeding $2,500 per month. Social assistance rates, meanwhile, remain inadequate, leaving thousands of disenfranchised individuals with no means to meet their basic needs, perpetuating cycles of poverty and limiting opportunities for upward mobility.

Blaming progressive policies for this disparity ignores the broader systemic issues at play. Decades of underinvestment in affordable housing and rampant real estate speculation have created a perfect storm. Addressing homelessness requires bold, structural reforms: more social housing, stricter speculative investment regulations, and increased rental subsidy funding. Progressive policies like the “housing-first” model, prioritizing providing stable housing without preconditions, have been proven to work which directly contradicts Hamm’s assertions. 

Tough Love Doesn’t Work

Hamm’s critique implies that progressive policies are soft or naïve, and she hints at the need for tougher measures. This rhetoric is familiar—it underpinned the U.S. war on drugs, which emphasized punishment over treatment. The result? Mass incarceration, racial disparities, and no reduction in drug use or addiction rates.

Closer to home, Vancouver’s use of street sweeps to clear homeless encampments has shown that punitive approaches only displace vulnerable people, forcing them to set up camp elsewhere without addressing the root causes of their homelessness. This cycle of displacement creates more instability, making it even harder for people to access the services they need.

We need compassion and evidence-based solutions instead of doubling down on failed punitive policies. Progressive policies aren’t about excusing addiction or homelessness—they’re about addressing the conditions that perpetuate them.

A Path Forward

The crises of homelessness and addiction in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside are real, and Hamm is right to call them heartbreaking. But her diagnosis is flawed. Blaming progressive policies is not only inaccurate—it’s dangerous. It distracts and takes attention away from the systemic issues that need urgent attention: housing affordability, income inequality, and an underfunded mental health care system.

What’s needed now is not a retreat from progressivism but a deeper commitment to its principles. We need to scale up harm reduction programs, invest in affordable housing, and rebuild our public health infrastructure to provide comprehensive mental health and addiction care. These are not radical ideas—they are practical, evidence-based solutions that have worked elsewhere and can work here.

Amy Hamm writes that “no Canadian belongs in a padlocked tent.” We agree. But the solution is not to abandon progressive policies—it’s to strengthen them. If we want to build a society where no one has to live in a tent, we need bold, systemic changes that address the root causes of homelessness and addiction. Anything less would be, to quote Hamm’s own words, “dangerously irresponsible.”