Part ONE
Introduction
In this document we deal with "harm reduction" and
two of its major components, namely methadone and free
needles/syringes.
The concept "harm reduction" implies that it is desired to minimise
the harmful effects of the drug abuse of an individual.
But it might also imply that there is such a thing as "safe drug taking" when
the "harm" is reduced or eliminated.
EURAD states that it is the drug taking in itself and the behaviour drug abuse causes, that is the root of the "harm".
Therefore, by introducing "harm reduction" and leaving the drug taking unattended, the general public might be lulled into false hopes about the solution of the drug problem. In fact, EURAD queries whether this, in the long run, might not also mean harm production to individuals, families and communities.
Complications
There are several factors complicating the scene. EURAD is well aware of the fact that European countries are not all alike. They differ in history, tradition, religion, economic resources, languages, social welfare policies, etc. Therefore, their measures against drug abuse must differ. However, what all countries have in common is the need to reduce drug abuse. We must learn successful strategies from each other and adapt them to the conditions in our own countries. We learn from history that no country has ever decreased their drug problems by making it easier to use drugs. Distribution of methadone and free needles might make it easier to keep on using drugs. The habit is then untouched.
Another important factor to take into account is the goal of the drug policy in each country. We must constantly bear in mind that distribution of methadone and free needles are measures directed towards very advanced drug abusers, late in their career of drug abuse. EURAD puts focus on the pre-debut and early drug abuse stages before dependency has occurred. Prevention and early intervention are the major strategies on which communities should place priority for the future. If that is done, not so many will reach a point where they are considered hopeless cases and given methadone as "terminal treatment".
For humane reasons, we cannot abandon those individuals addicted to drugs TODAY. So what do we do? EURAD pleads for a combination of measures, mobilisation of economic and personal resources from communities, organisations and individuals. We will never be able to curb the drug abuse situation just by handling out strong addictive drug like methadone which also for example has no effect at all on other drugs like alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, etc.
Methadone can also be tempting to politicians to use as a cosmetic strategy just because it is cheap. Politicians - and taxpayers! - favour cheap "solutions". The drug problem has however reached such proportions that a mobilisation of an informed public is needed.
Not black and white
The picture is however not totally black and white.
EURAD states that methadone might have a role for advanced
opiate addicts even in a well-conducted, restrictive
national drug policy/strategy.
The conditions for such programmes are presented later in this stage.
Legalisation - Harm Reduction - Background
The increasing demands for harm reduction have, of course,
a background which has to be taken seriously.
Also, the demands for legalisation and decriminalisation can be said to have
the same background, namely a continuously deteriorating drugs situation. International
drugs criminality has in many cases developed into the fastest growing economic
sector. Its economic and social force makes it a powerful enemy. It not only
constitutes a threat to the judicial order, but also to the judicial social
welfare structure and health and undermines the development and maintenance
of society and democracy.
Many of those advocating legalisation, decriminalisation and/or harm reduction do so due to a feeling of fatigue, impotence, despair or capitulation. Their ambition then is not to solve the problem but to manage it. They say we must "learn to live with it". The further the boundaries of tolerance are gradually stretched, the greater the need to manage the problem rather than solve it.
EURAD does not accept that low level of ambition, simply because we believe that the price is too high. Drug abuse ruins too many lives to become complacent about it and accept it.
One of EURAD' s main tasks is therefore to inspire courage and hope into the drugs situation. We do that because we know that the drug problem can be substantially reduced with restrictive, humane and democratic measures.
EURAD Drug Policy
To clarify the EURAD standpoint on harm reduction, we need to review some of EURAD' s general standpoints on drug policies.
EURAD advocates a demand restrictive policy called "The Third Way". This concept means that we differ from present policies ("The Third Way") which mainly focuses on the supply side. But we also differ form "The Second Way" which wants to legalise drugs and make them freely available. This would be more disastrous the present shortcomings of the supply- control strategies.
To preserve democracy, ANY serious strategy presented must face the same question: Will this help to achieve a drug-free society?
EURAD fears that strategies like harm reduction might well increase and change the nature of the problem in the future. EURAD claims that a successful strategy against drugs must focus on the individual user. As long as the pattern of drug taking is untouched, the problem remains and increases since drug takers are left in a position where they can spread the habit to beginners.
Focusing on the individual user means that every person using drugs must be addressed. If discovered, users in the early stages can stop their drug taking quite easily since they are not yet addicted. Advanced drug abusers might need different forms of treatment. Our communities need to provide a great variety of measures, depending on the individual situation.
 |
 |
