Front Burner (CBC): “The 'compassion club' fighting Canada's drug laws”

Host: Jayme Poisson
Guest: Michelle Gamage, Health Reporter at The Tyee
Date: December 9, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode delves into a pivotal constitutional court challenge in British Columbia (B.C.) that could reshape drug laws across Canada. The focus is on the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF), a Vancouver-based “compassion club” that directly sourced, tested, and distributed heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine to users as a harm reduction strategy—operating outside Canada’s legal frameworks but with the goal of saving lives amid the toxic drug crisis. Host Jayme Poisson and journalist Michelle Gamage break down DULF’s journey, the political backlash, the legal implications, and the broader context of harm reduction policies versus public opinion in Canada.

Key Discussion Points

1. Who Are DULF and Its Founders?

• Founders: Jeremy Callicum (studied chemistry, aspiring physician, drug-testing technician) and Eris Nix (“punk” musician, community organizer, downtown east side harm reduction worker; “fierce,” outspoken, pursuing an MSc at UBC).
• Mission: Addressing B.C.’s catastrophic overdose crisis by providing a regulated, tested drug supply to circumvent the dangers of street drugs contaminated with fentanyl and other substances.
  • “It’s not a hyperbole when she says that thousands of people in my neighbourhood would die every year of overdose.” (Michelle Gamage, 03:55)
  • “You cannot recover someone if they have passed away. Someone cannot go to abstinence-based treatment if they’re dead.” (Michelle Gamage, 05:17)

2. Why Did They Operate Outside the System?

• Limitations of Existing Treatment: Methadone, hydromorphone, and other opioid agonist treatments reach less than 5% of those who could benefit—mainly due to barriers such as required daily pharmacy visits, distrust of the medical system, trauma, or geographic challenges.
  • “Calculations from the province say that a fraction—and we’re talking about less than 5%—of people who could benefit from these programs are able to access them.” (Michelle Gamage, 06:27)
  • "We have to try something that works outside of this to try and get the people who can’t be helped by the current options." (06:58)

3. The Compassion Club Model and Its Impact

• Operations: Started in 2022; peaked at 47 members, primarily from Vancouver’s downtown east side.
  • Drugs sourced (illegally) from the dark web, tested for purity, sold at cost.
  • Community support, social connection, and harm reduction were central.
  • “DULF was like a huge part of my social life, my gateway to the community, really. […] I’d be dead 10 times over if it wasn’t for them.” (Compassion Club member, quoted by Michelle, 08:43)
• Outcomes: Zero deaths among club members during its operation; fewer overdoses, reduced police interactions, decreased hospitalizations, less reliance on illicit markets.

4. Government and Police Response

• Initial Support: DULF was open with authorities, even seeking Health Canada exemptions (unsuccessful). The Vancouver Police were aware; Vancouver Coastal Health and First Nations Health Authority provided funding for testing and harm reduction, not for drug purchases.
  • "Vancouver Coastal Health […] gave them $200,000 to do drug testing and to run an overdose prevention site." (Michelle Gamage, 11:28)
• Turning Point: In late 2023, political backlash grew. Misattributed funding led to heated criticism from BC United and federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
  • “Supporting organized crime is not life-saving work.” (Kevin Falcon, cited at 13:31)
  • “The Vancouver Police Department apparently saw [a media article] … and that was the first time they learned that DULF had a storefront.” (Michelle Gamage, 13:29)
• Result: Police raided the DULF storefront in October 2023; founders arrested and, later, convicted.

5. Criticisms and Counterarguments

• Key Critique: Buying drugs off the dark web—regardless of funding source—supports organized crime.
  • Response: DULF only turned to illegal sources after Health Canada refused legal avenues; any user on the street is already supporting illicit markets.
  • “It’s not really any different to then go and buy drugs off the dark web. […] An important part of what they were doing is all of the drugs that they were selling, they were selling at cost.” (Michelle Gamage, 17:46)
• Diversion Concerns: Unlike safer supply programs, DULF drugs were not diverted because members sought precisely those substances.
  • “Part of DULF is that they were sourcing and selling drugs that people actually used. […] There was less interest in selling the drugs elsewhere because you are able to buy the drugs you actually want to use.” (Michelle Gamage, 19:17)

6. The Court Case: Legal Arguments

• Guilty Verdict: In November, DULF’s designation as an overdose prevention site didn’t exempt them from trafficking charges. The judge was sympathetic but emphasized legal boundaries.
  • “She talked about how DULF’s pilot project worked and criticized even the backlash against DULF a bit and called it the DULF founders being hung out to dry. […] She was very sympathetic […] but did ultimately find them guilty of trafficking.” (Michelle Gamage, 21:10)
• Constitutional Challenge: DULF now argues:
  • Section 7 (Charter): Right to life, liberty, and security is violated when access to safer supply is denied.
  • Section 15 (Charter): Law discriminates against marginalized and disabled (addicted) persons.
    • “If you cut off people’s access to this safer, tested supply, then people will have no choice but to turn back to the unregulated market. And as we talked about before, the unregulated market is hugely dangerous.” (Michelle Gamage, 22:54)
• Crown’s Position: The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act allows for exemptions; DULF just didn’t pursue it thoroughly enough.
  • “So the Crown can argue that DULF wasn’t necessarily earnestly trying to get an exemption, then DULF doesn’t necessarily get to argue that the law violated charter rights.” (Michelle Gamage, 24:09)

7. Potential Outcomes and Broader Significance

• The judge could:
  • Rule this specific trafficking section unconstitutional for these circumstances.
  • Offer recommendations or “clarity” for other harm reduction groups nationally.
  • Possibly trigger legislative changes to allow for supervised compassion clubs—but widespread reform is unlikely in one ruling.
• Harm reduction (safe supply) is strongly evidence-backed but controversial among the public.

8. Public Opinion vs. Evidence

• Poll (September 2024): Only 46% of Canadians support harm reduction as a primary strategy to address overdoses; 54% prefer enforcement and penalties.
• Why the Disconnect?
  • Legacies of the “war on drugs” and moral framings.
  • Emotional responses cloud rational, evidence-based policy support.
  • “There’s a rational argument to help people, and it’s coming up against people’s emotional reaction to drugs, which they’ve been taught their whole lives.” (Michelle Gamage, 27:36)
  • Harm reduction must be one part of a broader strategy including treatment, naloxone, and prescribed alternatives.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the urgency and necessity of DULF’s work:
  “I’d be dead 10 times over if it wasn’t for them.”
  — Compassion Club member, quoted by Michelle Gamage (08:43)

• On the conflict with the law:
  “DULF has always been very open in the media. They have been trafficking. They were open to the federal government. ‘We’re going to traffic if you don’t give us permission here.’”
  — Michelle Gamage (21:35)

• On the need for a comprehensive approach:
  “It’s not just regulated drugs that will take us out of this crisis. It’s investing in everything the government is currently doing and more.”
  — Michelle Gamage (28:19)

Timestamps & Key Segments

• [00:47] – Episode premise and DULF introduction
• [02:32] – Background on Eris Nix, Jeremy Callicum, and their motivations
• [05:41] – Critique of current medical (“safe supply”) programs
• [07:38] – Impact on DULF members and outcomes
• [10:08] – Relationship with police, government, and health authorities
• [12:33] – Political backlash and police raid
• [16:08] – Addressing political and media criticism
• [18:42] – Diversion, prescription opioids, and harm reduction
• [20:34] – Criminal trial verdict and judge’s sympathy
• [21:51] – Constitutional challenge: Charter rights and legal arguments
• [26:08] – Polling/public opinion on harm reduction
• [27:06] – Emotional vs. rational divides in policy debate

Conclusion

This episode provides a rich, nuanced look at the intersection of law, politics, harm reduction, and public sentiment in Canada’s response to the ongoing drug toxicity crisis. DULF’s compassionate and bold model is both a flashpoint in the policy debate and a lens through which to examine the limits—and potential futures—of Canadian drug law.