HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/anti.harm.reduction

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 4KB

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 17:46:23 -0400
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: "Bill D'Amico" <[e-mail]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[e-mail]>
Subject: DWI on Harm Reduction

Here's another bit from DWI that I picked up in Atlanta. I won't post
editorial comments in this one.

DWI Position statement on Harm Reduction

Prevention and the elimination of harm, not "Harm Reduction" has the
best potential for effectively addressing the drug problem. "Harm
Reduction" is a theory promoted by pro-drug advocates which holds that
society must learn to accept levels of use of psychoactive or addictive
drugs by adults and youth and teach them that "responsible use" of these
drugs to reduce the harm. Drug Watch International opposes this theory
of "harm reduction" and believes that no level of use of marijuana,
cocaine, and other harmful and illicit substances is acceptable.

Background:
The term "Harm Reduction" was "coined" in Great Britain by a group of
individuals attempting to make the use of illicit drugs acceptable to
society. The basic premise is that the personal use of illicit drugs
should be legal, and can be made manageable and less harmful to the user.
The goal of "harm reduction" according to proponents, is to decrease the
negative consequences of drug use, rather than decrease the prevalence
of drug use. Abstinence, they say, may neither be a realistic or desired
goal. Some have utilized this theory as a method attempting to "reduce"
the spread of hepatitis among IV drug users. The onset of HIV infection
has given major impetus to this flawed concept. The "harm reduction"
concept has been incorporated into some treatment programs which allow
for continued drug use rather than working towards no drug use. It has
made inroads into health programs and school curricula in Great Britain,
Australia, and Canada.

Rationale:

"Harm Reduction" interpretations range from the legalization of some
drugs, to decriminalization, to the legalization of all drugs. The
fallacy of "Harm Reduction" is that dangerous and addictive drugs can
safely be used if properly managed by the user or regulated by
government.

"Harm Reduction" has no place in drug prevention. "Harm Reduction"
includes educational strategies used to teach "responsible use" of drugs
and which convey that drug use is tacitly if not openly acceptable,
regardless of the harmful effects of drugs.

The "responsible use" or "harm reduction" approach to drug use was
attempted in the US in the 1970's. The result was record levels of drug
use by young people, many of whom became the middle aged addicts of
today.

"Harm Reduction" proponents falsely claim that education and prevention
have failed. Prevention (no first drug use) programs, policies and
strategies have caused a positive change in public attitudes about
illicit drugs and a significant decline in drug use, especially by
youth. A social context in which drug use is not accepted is essential
in decreasing drug use.

"Harm Reduction" ignores the proven physiological effects of drugs use.
"Harm Reduction: is counterproductive to individuals with addictive
behavior. The most successful treatment programs are abstinence-based.

"Harm Reduction" policies in Europe resulted in a dramatic increase in
the number of drug users in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, Sweden, and other countries. As a result, a number of
European countries, returned to a restrictive drug policy when it became
clear that lenient drug laws had a negative effect on society.

"Harm Reduction" proponents consider that legalizing drugs would be the
ultimate "harm reduction" for the drug user. For them, the right to
personal use of psychoactive and addictive drugs supersedes what is
beneficial and healthy for the rest of society.