HARM REDUCTION IS NOT THE RIGHT ROAD

I've been hearing more and more talk about "harm reduction." At first I
didn't argue because it sounded like a noble pursuit.

Then I heard some activists boasting that they've started a "Manitoba Harm
Reduction Network." That's when I started getting more suspicious.

I thought to myself, "We were all in this together. Why would some folks
want a separate network for harm reduction?"

As I talked with some of the members and proponents of this coalition, they
made it clear that forming the network was one way of distinguishing
themselves from those who "naively" obsessed over harm elimination rather
than focusing on harm reduction.

They're advocating that we re-prioritize our collective efforts (staffing,
programs and funding) into harm reduction. I'm wondering if it's purely
coincidental that while government cuts treatment (harm elimination)
they're talking more and more about harm reduction.

If pushed to be honest, many confess that they have given up on eliminating
the harm. Some of them don't even want to discuss all the harms. And most
of these activists are certain they want to avoid any appearance of
judgment regarding the behaviour of addicts and criminals whose harms they
seek to reduce.

But their rhetoric outstrips our reality. The philosophical propaganda of
harm reduction is betrayed by lack of practical proof.

Do you see less harm to addicts and their victims? Do you see fewer
prostitutes on the street? Have you noticed the decrease in violence and
mayhem due to the "harm-reduced" version of crack addiction?

But these folks are unflinching in their assessment of their own
importance. They insist that the only reason they haven't succeeded is that
we haven't yet surrendered enough tax dollars, ideals and programs to their
agenda of harm reduction. They dismiss or attack attempts to evaluate their
philosophical claims of harm reduction.

Government is increasing distribution of crack kits to addicts who don't
want to stop -- while decreasing the treatment options for those who want
to stop.

Harm reduction activists won't bite the hand that feeds them. Their calls
for adequate treatment are muted by their awareness of how they profit from
government's perverted priorities.

Harm reduction makes the most sense when delivered by medical
professionals. Not social activists, many of whom are philosophically
opposed to some efforts at harm elimination.

Does it make more sense to fund more programs to tell addicts what they
already know? Shouldn't we rather fund places that help them stop when they
want to quit?

Harm-reduction activists won't advertise how "needle exchange" programs
have deteriorated into "needle distribution" programs. The needles are
still out there -- carelessly discarded and easily picked up or stepped on
by kids and others. And how many of those addicts haven't contracted HIV or
Hep C through some other aspect of their destructive lifestyle? Let's not
exaggerate the harms reduced.

If the network is so concerned about reducing harm, why don't they
introduce a condom exchange program? Folks could bring in a used condom
(instead of dumping it out the window on the sidewalk) and, in exchange,
receive two new condoms, a chocolate bar and a cigarette.

I've wondered previously why harm reduction activists don't distribute
clean sniff rags for sniffers. The WRHA could publish lists of less harmful
solvents and techniques by which they can be abused more "safely."

Government and agencies seem to be dedicating more and more resources to
harm reduction rather than treatment.

In an article months ago, I mockingly postulated that perhaps unrepentant
pedophiles should be given a condom and safe-rape kit before being released
onto our streets.

I was shocked to learn that harm reduction activists in Cambodia actually
admitted that they have counselled children as young as six in the art of
servicing tourists.

They work to build relationships and encourage change. But in the end, the
only practical help they offer is instruction in how to use a condom, and
how to say "please wear a condom" in English, Japanese and German.

For children as young as six years old!

Some of these groups are so anxious to preserve their role in "harm
reduction" that they refuse to jeopardize their relationships with brothel
owners by getting them busted or ratting them out.

Donna Hughes, professor at the University of Rhode Island, provides a very
appropriate analogy.

Imagine if 19th century abolitionists were willing to mute their protest
against slavery in order to cultivate better relationships with slave
traders. Imagine if they contented themselves with facilitating better
conditions on slave ships.

I can just imagine members of historical "harm reduction networks"
distributing bottles of sunscreen to alleviate sores and cancers caused by
extreme exposure to ultra-violet rays. To get close enough to the slaves,
they'd have to be sufficiently non-judgmental enough not to incur the wrath
of the plantation owners.

Thank God for some folks who were willing to balance tolerance with sound
judgment. Thank God for abolitionists who didn't content themselves with
harm reduction.

As I survey the chaos, crime and agony caused by today's slavery to
addiction and prostitution, I'd rather take my stand with the "naive"
abolitionists than the "realistic" harm reductionists.

Harm reduction makes sense within a context of harm elimination. If you're
not committed to the latter, you're not fully equipped for the former.