"Not in my backyard!" If I had a dollar for every time I heard this in response to life-saving approaches to overdose prevention, maybe I would have enough funding to push back against Doug Ford's recent cuts to overdose prevention sites.

According to Public Health Ontario, the number of opioid related deaths has increased by 246 per cent since 2003. In 2017, 92 per cent of these deaths were determined as accidental. Yet we hear "not in my backyard" all the time when it comes to overdose prevention and harm reduction. It's as if we do not have a growing epidemic affecting our communities and loved ones. Amid a growing opioid crisis where is the compassion? Where is the humanity?

Maybe this negative response is due to a lack of awareness about or misunderstanding of preventive measures. So, let's get educated. The groundwork for preventing opioid overdose deaths dates to the 1970s, with published research on the risk factors for opioid overdose. Twenty years later, the first community-based overdose prevention programs emerged. These programs offered education on substance use, overdose risks and prevention, as well as training in the administration and provision of naloxone (an antidote to opioid overdoses). Since then, these programs have led public health interventions for preventing overdose deaths.

British Columbia, the province with the highest overdose rates in Canada, is an example of how overdose prevention sites save lives. In 2016, B.C. declared a public health emergency due to its drug-related overdoses. In that year alone, the provincial coroner reported 930 overdose deaths. Community activists created pop-up, unsanctioned injection sites. As more of these sites developed and saved lives, the Minister of Health announced overdose prevention sites as a vital response to the declared emergency. As of 2017, Health Canada announced all provinces and territories can apply for the approval of temporary sites in response to emergencies. This response exemplifies how overdose prevention sites rapidly intervene and save lives.

What exactly are overdose prevention sites? They are inclusive spaces where staff (mainly peers) safely monitor individual's use of previously obtained substances and intervene when necessary for overdose prevention. These spaces offer sterile equipment. Many provide similar services as safe consumption sites, including offering harm reduction supplies and education, naloxone kits, and referrals to supports and services.

Unlike supervised consumption sites, overdose prevention sites are meant to be temporary spaces in response to drug overdose crises, with prevention as the main goal. Supervised consumption sites are long-term spaces that address harm reduction as related to drug use. This includes reducing the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C, reducing overdoses, addressing public safety concerns, such as needle discarding, and connecting individuals to services such as treatment, housing and medical care. These sites do not make drugs more accessible, nor do they normalize illegal drug use, make neighbourhoods less safe or take away resources from other health-care programs, and they don't only help individuals with drug addiction.

The opioid crisis affects more people than you probably think. It affects people with a drug addiction, people using substances recreationally and for chronic pain, people using for the first time, and people from varying sociodemographic and socioeconomic groups.

Why should you support overdose prevention sites? The answer is simple: because they save lives. This is not an issue of morality. It is an issue of humanity. People are dying, and overdose prevention sites and supervised consumption sites have been proven to save and support lives. Rejecting overdose prevention sites oppresses those affected, stigmatizes substance use, (consequently creating barriers to access), and gives people an easy out as they turn their back on vulnerable populations.

Premier Ford has cut funding to overdoes prevention sites, perpetuating the existing structural stigma surrounding individuals who use substances. This is a clear example of abuse of power. If there is a need, and there is evidence that this approach helps, what excuse is there to cut these supports? These cuts affect people's livelihood, normalize stigmatization and support society's use of "not in my backyard." Do not be a pawn in this political game. Start conversations, destigmatize substance use, be part of the solution.

Disapproving overdose prevention sites, saying "not in my backyard," sends a dangerous message. It rejects the notion of humanity; it says that the lives of those affected do not matter. Well guess what? They do matter. As does your life, your parents' lives, your sibling's life, your partner's life, your children's lives, your friend's life, your neighbour's life, your co-worker's life, and the life of the stranger walking past you. These are the lives that are affected.

I do not want to believe we live in a world where we can turn our backs on each other. Maybe we can still stand together, with humility. Maybe we can still be vulnerable together, learn from one another and support each other. Maybe if we opened our eyes to the alarming rates of this opioid crisis, maybe if we realized we are all affected and understood how communities can work toward prevention, maybe then we will invite overdose prevention into our backyards. Just maybe.

Michelle Kakar is a University of Waterloo master's of social work student.