HARM REDUCTION AS ALTERNATIVE

To the Editor:
The letter "Harm Reduction Is Deceptive" (Oct. 9), by Edward H. Jurith of
the National Drug Control Policy office, mischaracterizes harm reduction as
a political movement. Harm reduction is a public-health alternative to the
highly politicized drug war that acknowledges that both drug use and drug
enforcement have the potential to cause harm.

There is a clear historical precedent in alcohol prohibition. Prohibition
financed organized crime and violence, while failing miserably at
preventing use. Harm-reduction proponents tend to be medical professionals
who put public health ahead of political correctness.

The "zero tolerance" approach favored by drug war profiteers is simply not
cost-effective.

ROBERT SHARPE
Washington
The writer is the program officer for the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy
Foundation.

*
To the Editor:
Harm reduction doesn't admit that drug prevention is impossible. It just
recognizes that it isn't 100 percent effective.

No matter how many times and ways we say "just say no," many kids will
still use drugs. Harm reduction is a well-known approach now in use.
"Friends don't let friends drive drunk" is a perfect example.

It doesn't say "don't drink" even though that would be the preferred
action, because we recognize that kids drink even though under age. It
doesn't even say "don't get drunk." It recognizes the reality that people
drink beyond their ability to drive safely and then has a message that will
decrease harm if followed. I will continue to use the approach with my
daughter.

I want to give her full protection against the drugs I know she will
encounter in her journey to adulthood - to do all I can to make sure she
gets there safely.

RUTH LAMPI
Chevy Chase, Md.

*
To the Editor:
The letter "Harm Reduction Is Deceptive" is correct in saying "harm
reduction is an approach that concedes drug abuse prevention is
impossible." Surely neither the writer nor any other serious observer could
believe otherwise, given the resistance of the problem to decades of costly
commitment, "education" and severe sanctions. And if one "concedes" that
which can't be denied - that drug abuse will persist despite all the
measures that we can (and should!) take to try to prevent it - then what
could be more rational, humane and consistent with the interest of
Americans than to seek to reduce the harm with which it is associated?

DR. ROBERT NEWMAN
New York
The writer is the director of the Chemical Dependency Institute at Beth
Israel Medical Center.