The Drug Czar's blog has been very concerned about harm reduction lately. They've taken the counterintuitive position of opposing efforts to save the lives of drug users, which seems like a strange choice. Now I understand why: they think harm reduction is the opposite of what it actually is.
We could do nothing. That would be "giving up." We could ask drug addicts to either quit or die. That would be "giving up." Instead, harm reduction activists have taken to the streets and attacked this problem directly. They've studied the leading causes of death among drug users and created programs to reduce those casualties. That's the opposite of giving up.
Just pretend for a moment that you're cruel and you want drug users to die in large numbers. How would you go about it? Well, you would begin by eliminating regulated distribution so that users are forced to obtain unsafe products from criminals on the street. You would reduce access to clean needles in order to spread AIDS. You would enforce criminal sanctions against users so that they're afraid to seek help. And you would lobby aggressively against anyone who's studied the problem and proposed programs to reduce AIDS and overdoses.
Now I'm not saying the Drug Czar wants to kill people. I'm just saying he presides over a policy that is perfectly tailored to achieve that outcome. And he dares to suggest that the people out there working with addicts and saving lives are the ones who've given up.
These so-called "harm reduction" strategies are poor public policy because their underlying philosophy involves giving up on those who can successfully recover from drug addiction. [PushingBack.com]This is wrong for a very simple reason: you cannot recover from addiction if you're dead. Harm reduction programs are not an alternative to treatment, rather they go hand in hand. Harm reduction keeps people healthy and alive, thereby creating opportunities for them to subsequently recover from addiction.
We could do nothing. That would be "giving up." We could ask drug addicts to either quit or die. That would be "giving up." Instead, harm reduction activists have taken to the streets and attacked this problem directly. They've studied the leading causes of death among drug users and created programs to reduce those casualties. That's the opposite of giving up.
Just pretend for a moment that you're cruel and you want drug users to die in large numbers. How would you go about it? Well, you would begin by eliminating regulated distribution so that users are forced to obtain unsafe products from criminals on the street. You would reduce access to clean needles in order to spread AIDS. You would enforce criminal sanctions against users so that they're afraid to seek help. And you would lobby aggressively against anyone who's studied the problem and proposed programs to reduce AIDS and overdoses.
Now I'm not saying the Drug Czar wants to kill people. I'm just saying he presides over a policy that is perfectly tailored to achieve that outcome. And he dares to suggest that the people out there working with addicts and saving lives are the ones who've given up.
Location:
United States
See map: Google Maps
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Abusers, Not Users
I like your post, except for your use of the term "users". Addicts are abusers.
Arguably the biggest lie to sustain the WoD is the equation of drug use and drug abuse, interchanging the words "use" and "abuse", and "users" and "abusers" to meet one's propaganda.
The clear distinction between use and abuse is critical towards properly ending the WoD, because abusive behavior is what's causing the harm (justifying the WoD in the minds of the voting majority).
Drug abuse (including legal substances like alcohol and tobacco), as we know, is a real problem that society needs to address.
If we want to end the WoD, we should be doing all we can to improve the current system of abuse prevention and treatment, as such a system is critical towards supporting full legalization.
It's time to stop muddying the waters between use and abuse.
Once you have crossed the threshold into harm, you abuse, not use.
Please spread the word.
abuse vs use
I don't completely understand the semantics used to determine how abuse and use differ. Is a person who uses a designated driver to get home after drinking enough to become inebriated, and abuser or a user? The differentiation of the two seems to not be so black and white. Right now, if it is"illegal" use of controlled drugs, it is abuse. If obtained with a prescription, it is use.
If we are talking alcohol, then when does one determine what is abuse. It is obviously the most abused drug in the country! But, still perfectly legal, as long as you do not do anything else, that is. (like driving drunk, violent behavior against others, etc.) That is why the drugs need to be stressed less, and the disease of addiction, more. An addict, no matter whether alcohol or drugs, has a problem that needs addressed, medically. I feel drunk driving can be a violent act, so the imprisonment of those people makes more sense that non-violent drug users.
use v. abuse
first of all, you are not supposed to understand the semantics...the more confused you (and the rest of the public are) the better...
in drug war rhetoric any USE is ABUSE...even when it comes to "legal" pain management with legally prescribed narcotics if deemed to be over a certain "pills per day" kind of limit (despite the fact that chronic pain patients develop tolerances and require more medication over time) over a certain # per day you are considered a "drug seeker" and probably a dealer...and the prescriber can also be punished (losing his/her license to prescribe for one thing)...
the words abuse and addiction are now overused and in some ways have lost their meaning...(how many video games are advertised as "addicting" in a positive sense?)
MY opinion - use is anything that is not abuse; abuse/addiction is when an activity (drug use, video games, shopping, work, sex...) becomes the overriding focus of a person's life and interferes with (most) other activities
Pain?
Very well said!
Harm reduction
What I would like to know is, when did it become the obligation of the government OR society to protect me from myself? Use or abuse, recreation, medication or addiction, the use of drugs is a personal choice, which every adult SHOULD be free to make. Legislators DO have an obligation to regulate and control the quality and purity of the drugs we use; by refusing to do so, they KNOWINGLY endanger the lives of millions of Americans. By arming police with weapons of war, and turning a blind eye to the extremely violent nature of drug raids, they endanger millions more.
Using Abuse
I believe that something is abused once harm is done as a result.
In the Controlled Substances Act, a Schedule I substance is defined by three properties, two of them medical in nature. The remaining one is "has a high potential for abuse". The recreational use of a Schedule I substance is illegal due to that one remaining property.
"Abuse" and "harm", two words wielded constantly to attack freedom, are impossible to define in a one-size-fits-all (e.g. WoD) manner, because every individual is unique. One's use can be another's abuse. One's normal wear-and-tear degree of harm can be another's detriment to society degree of harm. The threshold for abuse is therefore determined accurately only on a case-to-case basis.
Prohibitionists have not provided conclusive, irrefutable evidence proving an instance of substance use causes any reasonable harm at all (for most, if not all, illegal substances). Key words are "conclusive" and "irrefutable". If one is to attack freedom in the U.S. (the land of "Let freedom reign!"), they better have very solid evidence supporting that effort. The only thing prohibitionists can solidly prove, by revealing lives clearly destroyed by substance abuse, is that substance abuse is harmful.
The real horror for me has been discovering that something has been successfully banned solely on abuse potential. Why? Because anything in life can be abused! If you do too much of something to a degree neglecting responsibilities, or do something the wrong way, those are two forms of abusive behavior that apply to anything one can do.
To defend freedom (without freedom, there is no happiness), society should look to resolve abusive behavior (which is naturally at the core of all human created problems), instead of banning the various things abused.
The effort to combat substance abuse is a legitimate effort. Even if illegal substance abusers represent only 1.3 percent of the U.S. population, that equals 1,300,000 people roughly. Add to that whatever the percentage is abusing alcohol and tobacco, and the loved ones and other victims impacted, expanding the scope to an international level, and you have a real problem worth solving.
If we focus on separating use and abuse, working hard now to strengthen the current system of abuse prevention and treatment, we position ourselves in a way that full legalization makes the best sense, because we would have eliminated the logical speculation that legaliztion would increase the abuse problem, which is arguably the greatest obstacle we face, and we look good doing it, because we're helping to oppose the abuse problem while supporting freedom, making society better.
This approach facilitates stopping the drug war in the court of public opinion (where use and abuse are currently one), which is where victory awaits. Congress won't give a crap (as they have shown) until the majority of voters do.
We need omni-partisan voter support to end the WoD. We have a better shot at that if we acknowledge and help fix the abuse problem.
We need to improve our public relations.
Math Correction
Unless my math is still bad (which can't be ruled out), 1.3 percent of 300,000,000 (rough U.S. population) is 3,900,000, not 1,300,000.
So the substance abuse problem is even greater than I mentioned in the last post.
I don't think it's at all
I don't think it's at all clear that the drug czar doesn't want to kill people. The drug czar is an extremely horrible person.
The Drug Czar is Absolutely a Murderer
And he must know it. He, and his cohort, killed my stepson as surely as if they had shot him to death -- I don't know what made my stepson an addict, but I sure as hell know what made him a criminal. Unless the drug czar is a complete idiot, he must surely know that the policies of the federal government will result in the death of some people. However, those enforcing the insane War on (some) Drugs accept those deaths as less important than the goal of suppressing drug use. This is pure evil. The drug czar, and his gang, should be tried, convicted and, if we must execute anyone let it be them!
back to harm reduction
If I, a private citizen, gave somebody a gun, knowing that he intended to use it to harm other human beings, and looked the other way while he did just that, I would be judged as guilty as he for the damage done.
If I were the drug czar, I would blame the gun and imprison the vicitms.
Post new comment