Moving forward.

Over the past 6 weeks, our team has had the opportunity to evaluate the prevalent social issue in Vancouver of drug addiction. We started out by identifying some key factors and causes of the issue itself before thinking about and evaluating solutions. Addiction is a major issue interrelated to a number of other deep and complex social issues. We made contact with a significant number of individuals from the addiction community and beyond to further develop our ideas and gain valuable input and insight. We were fortunate enough to be able to connect with a number of knowledgeable and influential individuals on this issue and to garner a great deal of support from professionals we spoke to.

Actually putting our solution into practice will require commitment, both time wise and financially, that we have decided are not capable of handling ourselves. We have presented our project plan to SFU Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) to be evaluated and we hope that SIFE can take the groundwork we have laid out and create a meaningful and effective event utilizing their existing contacts and resources. We are also awaiting indication from The Economist on sponsorship and funding, under their ‘Think Differently” marketing campaign, for which we approached them with a title sponsorship offer.

It is our hope that the connections we have made in the addiction community and beyond in collaboration with the connections of SIFE can be utilized to achieve the goals of our event with the assistance and guidance from those most experienced in creating meaningful and productive case competition and dialogue events.

Learning the ropes.

Over the past weeks, we have had the opportunity to examine and evaluate a significant social issue in Vancouver- addiction. Through our work, we have had the opportunity to speak with a number of people actively involved in this issue and have learned a great deal.

Ben : At first look it is easy to brush off as “their fault” or “their choice”. I myself, regretfully, have taken this outlook in the past…

Matt : It would be very difficult to point out the exact reasons for ineffective approaches since addiction is a very complicated matter, but I think a lack of general education is one of the reason…

Nelson : There is no one solution that will please everyone. Its not about about coming up with a compromise, but rather to help put things into perspective…

Sunny : Education is a powerful tool, as it helps to reflect on the reality and reduce some stigmatization…

When Conservatives Are More Liberal than the Liberals

“In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world.”

This sentence was taken from an article in The Economist published few months ago, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring it back here on our blog, since it’s about legalizing drugs. The Economist is certainly not well-known for being liberal, yet the magazine has been advocating the legalization of drugs for over 20 years and has published articles on the topics a few times, but still there is no changes. This article is definitely a must read, since it has greatly changed the perceptions of many about legalizing drugs among Liberals and Tories altogether.

The article basically argues that policies on drug addiction in the last 100 years have failed (is it me or we’ve already heard that before?), and by legalizing drugs we could actually regulate and control them better. The Economist doesn’t see legalization as the perfect solution, but as the lesser of 2 evils.

It’s a short read and it will probably change your life, or maybe just your day, but it’ll make you think for sure. The business student you are should also be amazed at this business opportunity, or not. Thoughts, ideas and screams of anger are welcome in the comment section.

The Necessity of Measuring our Impact and Success

We, as business students, are very concerned with success and how to measure it, but also with the impact we can have. We obviously want this event to be successful and here are our goals and how we plan to measure our success.

Main Objectives of the Event

The event aims at educating business students on drug addiction in general as well as the policies around it. As future managers and entrepreneurs, they have the ability and the knowledge necessary to bring a new perspective on drug addiction. They will have the opportunity to learn and understand why drug addiction is a disease and why treating it is economically viable, all religious, political or personal beliefs put aside. This event aims at filling a gap on a topic that is hardly ever discussed in class or in textbooks.

Desirable Outcomes

A website will be setup so participants can contribute their ideas afterward. The point is to keep the discussion alive and having a brainstorm so even more ideas of new policies can be generated. Having business students getting involved in their community in order to help reduce drug addiction, and directly help drug addicts is also a movement this event would like to create.

Measuring the Goals and Impacts

There is three parts as to whether this project is successful, one is before the event, the other one is during the event and the last one is after the event. The ultimate way to measure the success of what has been done before the event is whether or not the event can get people to fill the 120 seats. To measure the success of the event in itself, surveys will be given to the panel as well as the students so adjustments can be made for future years to come. Finally, to measure the success after the event, the website will be the main, but not the only, tool being used.

We think those goals and measurements are realistic and attainable, if you disagree please use the comment section to butcher our rational.

Meeting with Sam Thiara

When planning to organize a big event, getting the right people to help and advise is paramount, but the problem is that too often people don’t know what they’re doing or lack experience. Fortunately, here at SFU, we have a great resource when it comes to organizing, planning, and managing great projects and this person is Sam Thiara. I guess most of you have at least heard of him, and if not then open your BBA student agenda and there are 2 glossy pages, Sam’s picture is on one of them. One of his official titles is called “Manager of Student Engagement and Recruitment” another is called “Student Affairs Officer”. But the thing is that Sam does everything and knows everyone and his job title will never clearly define everything he’s involved in and does in the business department. A short and incomplete list of what Sam manages would be: Competitions, Student Development, International Exchanges, Conferences, and he’s also involved with and advise business clubs and associations.

So as you probably understand, Sam is the person you want on board with your project, and it seemed natural for us to try to get Sam on board. It took many attempts to successfully have a meeting with him, but the wait was worth it. In what seems to be 5 minutes, but was probably more like 15 minutes, Sam has given us 2 contacts, advises on funding, given 2 website URLs which turned out to be great resources, he also gave his opinion and advised on how to maximize our chances of success and even offered more help!

So from here, we will try to get funding from at least 2 levels of government: municipal and provincial since they are the ones more closely affected by drug addiction in DTES and are therefore more likely to help us, and Sam has also contacts at these 2 levels.

Sam also advised that it would be lengthy and complicated to get a credit for the seminar, but it could be done with determination and good arguments. One good point he has brought is that the first event is all about numbers, how many people you can get, then those people will talk to other friends and the word will spread. So we might have to change our strategy a little in this regard.  Another idea was to have a panel discussion with a broad selection of experts: health care expert, DTES drug addict, government representant, someone close to the cause that think we’re not doing enough and maybe even someone from the 2010 committee.

One last thing that Sam talked about and that will get its own post is called Vancouver Agreement and involves the 3 levels of government in an attempt to to promote and support sustainable economic, social and community development. We’ll blog more about this initiative.

We invited Sam to come to our presentation on Monday, to be part of the booth and have a chance to network (because that is Sam’s strength). Of course someone like Sam is busy and he might not be able to attend because of prior engagements, but we keep our fingers crossed!

Funding Innovation Cultivation

While looking into possible funding possibilities for this project, I came across many obstacles. Originally, the plan was to have this event to be fully sponsored by different organizations. After going out and trying to talk to a few businesses and banks, I quickly realized that people were hesitant to fund a event regarding drugs. Another thing that was soon brought to my attention was that businesses did not see funding this event as profitable.

Knowing that additional guidance was needed, I decided to get in touch with Dave Teixeira, who we met during a presentation he gave at one of our social innovation classes. Dave Teixeira was very helpful and offered his experience from previous social projects that he headed such as Wresting with Hunger and co-ordinating the Pink Shirt Anti-Bullying Day. He provided me with a “to do list” and also additional advises and pointers on where and how to start looking for funding. Following his advice, I began all over again and drew out all the costs required to host an event like this. Having a list ready and an approximation of how much money we will be needing, I soon realized that if we were to charge people $20 a ticket, the costs could potentially be covered.

Costs based on $20 per ticket, one third capacity (120 people) and no sponsors and discounts

To estimate these costs, I assumed that we will have no discounts or donors. Also, the area we rent will have a capacity to hold 350 and the assumption is that there will only be 1/3 capacity. If this were to happen, we would have $2400 from the ticket sales and the graph shows how that will be divided up. As seen, there is a bit of of extra proceeds or misc. costs section. This will cover anything that might be extra or if less people show up. Another great pointer by Dave was that by having an estimate of costs ready, once we realize how much funding we can get for this event, we are able to add or cut things from the budget.

However, even if this we were able to cover the costs entirely through ticket sales, having sponsors would still be useful. Apart from reducing our costs, they can be used as another medium to attract people to this event. Also, as Dave pointed out in his e-mail, having a budget to present to potential sponsors is more effective as people may decide to donate things (eg. beverages, food, posters, etc…) rather than give money. In the up coming weeks, I will try to more accurately project the required funding and try to bring in a couple of sponsors to help make this event come to life.

Less than 2 weeks left!

This past Monday, we presented our proposal to our social innovation class - hosting a forum on open drug policy aimed at business students. Overall, it seemed that the idea was well accepted.  One of the students asked why would business students want to attend. Our response was that students are learning about real issues in the community, with the opportunity to potential earn academics credits or an equivalent certificate. In addition, the group of students that presents the best solution (on alternative drug policies and how business students can apply their skills and education to such issues) has a chance to present it at the Blueprint For Beyond Prohibition, a large 3 day conference in late October that also focuses on alternate drug policies. Some die-hard business students gravitate towards such events, but it will be a friendly competition.

In attendance  was our guest speaker Nicola Hall, founder of From Grief to Action, and was named a Woman of Distinction by YWCA in 2003. FGTA’s goals are to provide support for family and friends of drug users, while promoting awareness of drug use as a health issue.  Nicola shared with us how she got involved in the community after family members started using drugs. She spent many years in social planning and decided to shed light on drug usage in middle to upper class neighbourhoods – something that was considered taboo.

Nicola told us that was our proposal was very feasible, but that we should find an economic hook – a way to lower cost while effectively combating drug addiction. She also mentioned that media coverage was an important aspect for informing people of what is being done. With that said, we need  to finalize details on the nitty-gritty stuff such as cost breakdown structure and detailed event planning. Its going to be a busy time, especially with all of us juggling deliverables for other classes. But being able to actually bring our idea to life would be truly rewarding.

losing ground, gaining support

A discussion with Alan Campbell, Director of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA). VIHA offers a range of services for addiction and their priority is providing appropriate accessible services for adults with serious mental illness and/or addictions. (Note: the views expressed here are of Alan Campbell’s, and do not reflect the views of the Vancouver Island Health Authority). 

As someone who works day-to-day addressing addiction and drug use, Alan is in a unique position to provide us with some insightful feedback on our social issue, drug policy, and our proposed solution. Addiction and drug use is a greater issue than treatment and prevention, it is about drug policy and how we deal with drugs overall; how we respond to this issue will affect addiction. Alan stated that this social issue is a ‘critical public policy issue’ an went further to say that ‘engaging the general public and providing clear information about addiction and substance abuse’ is vital. The hope is that this would ultimately result in a greater support for alternative and more effective approaches to dealing with the issue.

In our society at this time, we are facing an increase in drug use and there are views that we are ‘losing ground’ on drug availability, use, and addiction. Campbell stated his belief that the illegal drug industry has evolved more rapidly, with greater funding than the public policies that we have put in place to combat it. There is a sense of exasperation among people who work in the addiction community that they cannot alone tackle the problem and this creates a welcoming of alternative ideas from outside the community. 

The combination of feelings and evidence this presents a opportune time to step back from the issue, examine what is not working and look at what we can be doing differently to address this social issue. An open dialogue event such as the one we are proposing we hope would do just that. Addiction and drug use affects all areas of society and unfortunately, according to Campbell, not all groups affected are included in policy making. A discussion and generation of policy alternatives would have to include and represent everyone.

Campbell said the key issue that must be addressed is that most people do not understand what addiction is and what it is not- this is important to understand as it might allow people to address policy in a more effective way. In particular, I would argue this applies to policy makers at higher levels. They are often not exposed to the day-to-day consequences of addiction and drug use that communities are, however, policy makers often fall short of including these types of groups when designing policy. An event such as ours would need to present facts and evidence describing why exactly addiction is a problem and what impact it has on the various areas of society- a goal we would hope to achieve with our diverse panel of speakers.

Speaking about business students in particular, Campbell offered some reassurance that we do have something to contribute to the policy discussion and extended this to other groups outside the realm of addiction. Though we are fairly uninvolved and outside the addiction community, this may be an asset as we can see the issue from a different angle than someone surrounded by it. When you are do deeply involved in an issue, particularly addiction, you tend to become very passionate and your emotions can weigh in on the decision making process. Discussing addiction as outsiders and from more of an economical viewpoint as business student may provide some interesting ideas on alternatives; particularly in Vancouver where drug addiction is a visible issue. Campbell also went on to stress the importance of the commerce side of society to be informed and involved in social issues as it ultimately affects them as well.

Politicizing Addiction

A conversation about drug policy in federal politics with Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East since 1997. She is the Deputy Leader of the NDP, and has served as NDP House Leader since 2003. Libby is also the federal NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy Reform and Solicitation Laws. 

Libby began by expressing her enthusiasm for an event as the one we are proposing and her interest in being a part of it. Being directly involved in policy making as well as he role as spokesperson for drug policy reform, Libby was able to provide some interesting insight on drug policy in Canada. She echoed the opinions of others we have spoken to in a variety of other roles: that prohibition as a policy for dealing with drugs is overall ineffective and costly. 

Libby was particularly supportive of our event focusing on the business aspect of drug policy, both through the participants being mainly business students and approaching the issue of drug policy reform from an economic angle. According to Davies, there is an argument to be made that in addition to the hardships prohibition as a policy has created for human beings, it has also been overwhelmingly costly to our economy. She pointed to publications from such business focused organizations as the Fraser Institute on the true costs of prohibition. Areas of the community such as business and political realms may begin to see the need for policy alternatives if they could understand that those alternatives will actually benefit the economy instead of hurt it. 

Davies stressed the importance of addressing addiction and drug policy as causing a variety of health issues, but also looking at it as an economic problem overall. Asking, ‘what does prohibition mean from a business perspective?’. It is important for the business community to realize that current drug policy under prohibition is both ineffective and costly for our economy. This is also a statement that is important for policy makers at the federal level to believe; changing how we approach drugs and addiction must come from higher levels to be truly transformational. Drug policy change is likely to come about much easier if those formulating policy can understand the costs associated with how we currently address this issue. 

The fact that our event will be predominantly students of business background suggests an importance of stressing this in addition to the other inefficiencies of prohibition. Perhaps new wave of business community members like those who would participate in our event could benefit from exposure to both the health and economic costs of current drug policy and decide for themselves if an alternative approach is needed.

Economic Drain

A discussion with Donald MacPherson, creator of Vancouver’s Four Pillar Drug Strategy to reduce drug related harm in the city. The approach is a coordinated, comprehensive approach that balances public order and public health in order to create a safer, healthier community. (Also see previous post)

Given Donald’s extensive experience with the issue of drug use, policy, and addressing addiction, speaking with him regarding our ideas was an excellent opportunity to receive valuable input. A really interesting point that Donald made was that cities have quite a unique opportunity to inform and shape drug policy from higher levels of government. Cities are experiencing the issue of addiction/drug use on a day-to-day level and and observing the consequences of use that federal policy makers do not observe. Unfortunately, drug policy development often does not include representation from municipal levels of government, which is a tragedy as they have much to offer.

Given this, change in opinion and the movement to reform drug policy must really come from cities and lower levels of government. Drug policy transformation must follow from changes in policy at the Federal level, which starts by transforming the way we look at drugs and addiction. Part of the resistance to abandoning prohibition is the stigma associated with users- whereby any policy that is compassionate is just feeding their addiction. According to Donald, society must first come out of denial about the extent of drug use in our city. Collaboration between all areas of society and levels of government is needed for policy transformation to become a reality, and its critical that users are included in policy development.

Speaking directly about the business community, the perspective of people in business toward drugs and addiction must change. Business people need to understand the economic and social costs associated with prohibition to understand that perhaps an alternative approach will be better socially and economically for all of society. Dialogue is needed between all facets of society for this to be realized. 

When I asked Donald what he felt was critical to include in an event such as the one we are proposing, he had some interesting suggestions. An inclusive dialogue between all areas of society that must include research people to inform the dialogue with a certain amount of scientific evidence. The dialogue itself should be just that, and not a debate as they tend to become largely ineffective for exploring alternative ideas. Exploration of a variety of perspectives would lead to a greater sharing and creativity overall.