15. 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 youths and teach them the "responsible use" of these drugs to reduce the harm. EURAD 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 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 to decrease the prevalence of drug use. Abstinence, they say, may neither be a realistic or desired goal. Some have ulilized this theory as a method of 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 programmes which allow for continued drug use rather than working towards no drug use. It has also made inroads into health programmes and school curricula in Great Britain, Australia and Canada.
Rationale
" Harm Reduction" interpretations range from the legalisation of some drugs, to decriminalisation, to the legalisation 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 U.S. in the 1970's. The result was record levels of drug use among 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) programmes, 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 drug use. 'Harm reduction' is counterproductive to individuals with addictive behaviour. The most successful treatment programmes 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 legalising drugs would be the ultimate 'harm reduction' for the drug user. For them, the right to the personal use of psychoactive and addictive drugs supersedes what is beneficial and healthy for the rest of society.
Drugs are illiegal because they are dangerous - They are not dangerous because they are illegal.
