LESSONS IN PRAGMATISM

Eastern Europe hasn't always been the place to look for creative
public policy solutions, but there could be lessons for all of us in
how the Polish city of Lodz is addressing a familiar hazard: street
racing.

The lesson is that regulating a risky activity can be more productive
than prohibiting it, if only because regulation is possible whereas
outright prohibition is not.

Poland's economy has been robust in recent years, which means citizens
have more money to spend on expensive goods, like cars. In fact, the
number of cars in the country has doubled, to 18 million, since 1990.
Many of these new car owners are young and male, so it's little
surprise that street racing also exploded in popularity.

As in North America, where illicit street racing has been around for
years, Polish civic leaders addressed the problem in the way
politicians usually address such problems: with much bluster. No doubt
the phrases "crack down" and "get tough" were used liberally. But
despite efforts to eradicate racing from Lodz' streets, it remained as
popular as ever.

Lodz residents had filed many complaints about street racing, and city
officials might have scored more political points if they had promised
to increase their efforts to stamp out the activity. Instead, the city
government admitted they couldn't solve the problem and decided that
more lives would be saved if they concentrated on making street racing
safer. Considering that Poles make up less than eight per cent of the
population of the European Union but account for more than 12 per cent
of the union's fatal car accidents, it was a sensible decision.

So the city made street racing legitimate, in a way, by allowing
organized races. The city put up $20,000 for timing equipment. Fire
trucks and ambulances are always on hand. Thousands of spectators come
out to watch. According to one racer, the number of illegal street
races in Lodz has since decreased by 80 to 90 per cent.

There are parallels here to the ongoing debate in Canada over harm
reduction programs for drug users. Needle exchanges and safe injection
sites have been shown, many times, to improve the health of addicts.
Fewer dirty needles means fewer cases of HIV and hepatitis.

Some politicians and police leaders detest such programs, claiming
they do little to reduce drug use. But the primary purpose of a harm
reduction program is, as the name implies, to reduce harm. Programs
intended to reduce drug use are important and should play a major role
in any comprehensive drug strategy, but that doesn't mean efforts to
save the lives of addicts and improve public safety are a waste of
public money.

Supporting a harm reduction program need not mean that we as a society
are condoning the dangerous activity at the root of the harm. Shooting
up is dangerous no matter where it's done. Roaring down a narrow
street in a souped-up coupe is risky no matter if the city has ensured
that fire trucks are on hand and pedestrians are out of the way.

The analogy between drugs and racing is imperfect, of course. Would-be
street racers are presumably better equipped to make mature decisions,
and accept responsibility for their actions, than drug-addled junkies.
The Lodz approach certainly won't work for all social problems, and it
might not even work for street racing, but the city should be
commended for making a statement about the virtue of pragmatism in
politics.