HARM REDUCTION

The philosophy of harm reduction that forms the basis of the Good
Samaritan policy I hope to enact through the University Senate this
year is straightforward. This excerpt from the website of the
nonprofit organization Harm Reduction Coalition (www.harmreduction.org)
summarizes the guiding principle quite well: "[A public policy
approach of harm reduction] accepts, for better and for worse, that
licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to
minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn
them." This acceptance does not indicate "giving up" on the drug
problem but taking a positive and effective approach to solving it.

A few questions must be raised: Does this policy, current or proposed,
immediately address a harm that students face? And does it effectively
manage the potential dangers to one's health and well-being by
reducing harm associated with the risky behavior? Will the students at
the university be better off if they are ensured that the university's
first priority is the safety of its students, regardless of the
questionable decisions they may make in choosing to use alcohol or
drugs? Or will we be better off with a policy of strictly zero
tolerance, punishing equally the students who call 911 for EMS to save
a life and the students whose neighbors call the police to break up a
rowdy party?

Warren Kelley said in Nov. 26's "Samaritan policy may present
conflicts" that one of his reservations about adopting a Good
Samaritan policy here at the university is justified because "we look
at other schools that are like us. It would make us pause to find out
why they don't have it." It has been two decades since Len Bias died
of a cocaine overdose on campus before EMTs could arrive, and three
years of student advocacy for a more sensible approach to drug
policies. Now is the time for our administration to take some
leadership. Sometimes it can be uncomfortable to be a leader,
especially when trying to delicately balance public image, health and
student well-being, among other factors that drive the (lack of)
incentive university administrators have in adopting change.

For once, we need to stop worrying about how to legislate away drug
use, because, like it or not, its presence in human society is here to
stay. We are not likely to have our choices about relatively
commonplace risky behavior shaped by policy - especially the campus
policy - because we are dealing with such an unstable, dynamic and
experimental population: college students. Instead of concerning
ourselves with "how it will look," we need to make the shift to being
concerned about how the maximum number of students can avoid the most
harm.

Now in my junior year and second term as Students for Sensible Drug
Policy president, I'm realizing that here at my collegiate halftime,
I, along with many others, have been screaming my lungs out for
concrete reform of current campus drug policies. I am not so much
discouraged as I am frustrated with the painfully slow process of
policy change on this campus. I know the policy can be sufficiently
researched and discussed in order to reach a conclusion by the end of
the year. Now the senate and other policy-making bodies need to share
this belief, so they can efficiently implement and change policies, as
that is their sole purpose. How are elected student representatives
expected to do their best and perform their duties when we have a
maximum of four years here and most official policy changes take two
to three years at best? My term as undergraduate senator will end
after next semester, and, if things continue on their current path, I
may not even get to see my proposed legislation leave our committee
before then. The time for reform is now.