HARM REDUCTION PAYS FOR ITSELF IN THE LONG RUN

I understand how David Berner got the false impression that
harm-reduction measures hold sway in the "official view," while
"enforcement, prevention and treatment are given short shrift."

The media often makes a false dichotomy between harm reduction and
the other "four pillars."

The official view is that Canada needs a "balanced approach," with
equal emphasis on each pillar.

However, about 75 per cent of our drug-control budget is allocated to
criminal justice, 15 per cent to treatment and only four per cent to
harm reduction.

In contrast to enforcement, harm reduction works synergistically with
the other pillars and more than pays for itself in downstream benefits.

I'm proud Vancouver East MP Libby Davies received an award at an
international drug-policy conference in New Orleans last week.

Mayor Sam Sullivan also spoke to the conference, and compared
addiction to his own disability. But he did not propose providing
addicts with clean drugs and syringes in perpetuity.

Rather he likened such interventions to providing crutches to injured
athletes on the mend.

Would wounded skiers be more motivated to recover if we took away
their wheelchairs, ramps and parking spaces and dumped them in
urine-soaked alleys to be preyed upon by violent criminals scalping
lift tickets?

Would that send the right message to kids to be more careful on the slopes?

Maybe. But as a father of three daughters, if all else failed, I
would rather find them alive in a brothel or at a safe-injection site
than dead on a pig farm.

Matthew Elrod,

Victoria