Harm Reduction Works

Despite the mounting, although still debatable, evidence that indicates harm reduction strategies are safe, effective, and useful in our communities, stigma remains. Many of the criticisms against harm reduction strategies are rooted in a fundamental difference in philosophy to addiction treatment and recovery. Additionally, the perception that drug use is purely a moral issue, rather than a physical and psychological issue also promotes misunderstanding about harm reduction.

In 2018, there were over 67,000 drug overdose-related deaths in the United States. Overdose deaths are preventable, and harm reduction can play a major role in reversing this trend. If we can escape the issue of morality in drug use, the benefits become very clear. Once we acknowledge that people are going to engage in drug use, we can meet them where they are, and offer safer solutions including the number one harm reduction tool available – ABSTINENCE.

Here we’ll look at the common misconceptions about harm reduction

It leads to drug use: Wrong. Harm reduction acknowledges that people are already doing drugs, and seeks to meet them where they are. Harm reduction encourages safe practices and does not exactly promote drug use, but rather aims to make current users safer and healthier. The CDC has reported that providing harm reduction tools in the form of needle/syringe exchange leads to people receiving addiction treatment who otherwise may not have received care. Clinics and other places that offer harm reduction support are often a place that drug users are first exposed to treatment options and alternatives to dangerous drug use.

On the other side, drug users may be lulled into a false sense of security while having access to harm reduction resources, so their drug use may be prolonged. Studies have shown that, overall, harm reduction practices lead to increased rates of recovery, even if some people continue using drugs.

It is dangerous: Wrong. Harm reduction at its very core is about increasing safety – not just for the drug user but sometimes for the community as well. Encouraging abstinence, addiction treatment, disease treatment, and safe disposal of tainted drug materials help keep the public safe. A good example is the Toronto, Canada supervised injection sites and the benefits they provide alongside the negligible impact they have had on crime and the community.

It is costly: Wrong. By encouraging healthy behaviors, including abstinence and addiction treatment, harm reduction strategies can save money in the community. Reducing HIV transmission is a major cost-saving measure in and of itself. According to the CDC, the cost of treating a single HIV infection is over $370,000 over the life of the patient. The economic burden of unmitigated disease spread, overdose deaths, and unsafe sex is substantial. Promoting safety is far less costly than treating danger.

It doesn’t work: Debatable. The CDC reports that users of needle/syringe exchange services are 5 times as likely to receive addiction treatment. That being said, those who are more open-minded to treatment may be more likely to use these services in the first place, which would influence the interpretation of this data. The National Institute on Drug Abuse noted that harm reduction strategies could have prevented a devastating HIV outbreak in Scott County in Indiana. Wearing condoms is a harm reduction strategy that is extremely effective at preventing the spread of disease.

Harm reduction can provide benefits to drug users and the larger community, and as long as people choose to do drugs, helping them quit, moderate, or use safely remains an important societal goal. In the end, drug use is never safe and the safest possible way to interact with drugs is to avoid them entirely and remain abstinent.