<p>The current opioid epidemic has resulted in growing rates of overdose across the province with the introduction of fentanyl into illicit drug markets. What barriers are preventing policy makers from enacting emergency measures to save lives and how have those affected by the epidemic been categorically ignored? The following research critically analyzes drug discourse relating to the current opioid epidemic in Ontario and discusses why government responses to the epidemic have been delayed, and why they offer inferior measures to prevent growing mortality and morbidity. Using Ian Hacking’s theory of dynamic nominalism, the work systematically deconstructs drug discourse through a number of perspectives in order to identify stakeholders and manifest relations of power that drive policy deliberation and designate key figures of authority. Research has shown that opioid dependent users are infantilized and demonized due to a history of negative perspectives on drug use that persist today in drug discourse. </p>

<p>As a result of both the Black Lives Matter movement, as well as the ongoing violence inflicted upon Black individuals and communities by law enforcement in Canada and the United States, the prospect of abolishing or defunding law enforcement has entered public discourse as a tangible policy option. One common comment that upholds the legitimacy of law enforcement amidst the demand they be abolished is the question of interpersonal harm: without the police, who or what will protect survivors of harm? Given that only 3 in 1000 instances of sexual harm result in a conviction in Canada, law enforcement is actually a policy response to sexual harm that is underutilized and limited in its capacity to provide survivors with access to due process, justice, safety and healing following sexual harm. This qualitative inquiry seeks to amplify the perspectives of survivors themselves regarding their perceptions of and experiences with law enforcement, as well as what policy responses would have constituted adequate support following their experience(s) of sexual harm.</p>

<p>As a result of both the Black Lives Matter movement, as well as the ongoing violence inflicted upon Black individuals and communities by law enforcement in Canada and the United States, the prospect of abolishing or defunding law enforcement has entered public discourse as a tangible policy option. One common comment that upholds the legitimacy of law enforcement amidst the demand they be abolished is the question of interpersonal harm: without the police, who or what will protect survivors of harm? Given that only 3 in 1000 instances of sexual harm result in a conviction in Canada, law enforcement is actually a policy response to sexual harm that is underutilized and limited in its capacity to provide survivors with access to due process, justice, safety and healing following sexual harm. This qualitative inquiry seeks to amplify the perspectives of survivors themselves regarding their perceptions of and experiences with law enforcement, as well as what policy responses would have constituted adequate support following their experience(s) of sexual harm.</p>

<p>The current opioid epidemic has resulted in growing rates of overdose across the province with the introduction of fentanyl into illicit drug markets. What barriers are preventing policy makers from enacting emergency measures to save lives and how have those affected by the epidemic been categorically ignored? The following research critically analyzes drug discourse relating to the current opioid epidemic in Ontario and discusses why government responses to the epidemic have been delayed, and why they offer inferior measures to prevent growing mortality and morbidity. Using Ian Hacking’s theory of dynamic nominalism, the work systematically deconstructs drug discourse through a number of perspectives in order to identify stakeholders and manifest relations of power that drive policy deliberation and designate key figures of authority. Research has shown that opioid dependent users are infantilized and demonized due to a history of negative perspectives on drug use that persist today in drug discourse. </p>