Harm Reduction

Lazuli Waves

Woodpecker
What are your thoughts on harm reduction? Here is a definition:

"Harm reduction, or harm minimization, refers to a range of public health policies designed to lessen the negative social and/or physical consequences associated with various human behaviors, both legal and illegal."

It can refer to drugs. For example, some cities have needle-exchange programs so people addicted to heroin can get new needles to minimize infection.

Here is an LSD related video with a harm reduction disclaimer near the beginning:

Another example would be keeping liquor stores open during the lockdown, since alcoholics can suffer serious health problems or death if they suddenly stop drinking.

Harm reduction also comes into play when universities give away free condoms to minimize the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies. This university is shipping free lube, condoms, and dental dams to students, including those in quarantine with Covid-19. https://theracquet.org/10634/news/s...-of-sustainability-on-campus-due-to-covid-19/

Legalized prostitution and sex education are also considered a form of harm reduction.

George Soros' Open Foundation Society has a page on harm reduction, but only mentioning drugs:

Here are some criticisms:

Critics,such as Drug Free America Foundation and other members of network International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy, state that a risk posed by harm reduction is by creating the perception that certain behaviours can be partaken of safely, such as illicit drug use, that it may lead to an increase in that behaviour by people who would otherwise be deterred.

Pope Benedict XVI criticised harm reduction policies with regards to HIV/AIDS, saying that it was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.

 

andy dufresne

Kingfisher
This is nothing more than a set of policies that are akin to a parent allowing little Timmy to get away the worst forms of behavior so that little Timmy doesn't grow up or throw a tantrum.

It's the training book for the self-entitled SJW mentality.
 
It enables the behavior, therefore increasing it. They tried the same with abortion: "We must make it legal so the occasional woman doesn't die from a backyard abortion".. and he were are killing 600,000 babies a year.

But in Portugal decriminalization decreased the number of drug users. Same thing with the decriminalization of cannabis in the netherlands.

I think if someone wants to use drugs he will do it anyway.
 

godfather dust

Ostrich
Gold Member
"Needle exchanges to minimize number of infections" results in streets covered with needles, putting kids at risk of diseases usually only fags and needle users get.
They seem fine with giving out needles without enforcing the "exchange" part in most cases.
 

redbeard

Hummingbird
Moderator
Sounds scandalous, but also, why is it just limited to junkies? As usual, the middle class is completely ignored.

Imagine how much "harm" would be reduced if Americans had as much vacation as the Euros (six to eight weeks, I hear). Or what if losing your job didn't mean your life was ruined?

Lest I remind you of this...
TFR.JPG
 

bucky

Ostrich
Sounds scandalous, but also, why is it just limited to junkies? As usual, the middle class is completely ignored.

Imagine how much "harm" would be reduced if Americans had as much vacation as the Euros (six to eight weeks, I hear). Or what if losing your job didn't mean your life was ruined?

Lest I remind you of this...
View attachment 25473

Does losing your job really mean your life is ruined? I'm middle aged and I've been fired or laid off from a few jobs over the last few decades. It's no fun when it happens, but now I'm approaching 50 and I've got a great wife, a couple of adorable little kids, a nice little house, two reliable cars, and at least few months worth of emergency funds saved up (in case I lose my job yet again). My life doesn't feel ruined.

I'd argue that overall it's a good thing that it's easier to fire people in the US vs. places like Italy or France where it's very difficult, and hence employers are far more reluctant to hire people.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
But in Portugal decriminalization decreased the number of drug users. Same thing with the decriminalization of cannabis in the netherlands.

I think if someone wants to use drugs he will do it anyway.
I'm sure these policies may have reduced some of the harm associated with drug use, but I doubt these policies actually decreased the amount of users.

I mean, what kind of drug user says to himself "Oh, it's legal now? Well, I guess that means I'd better stop."
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
"Needle exchanges to minimize number of infections" results in streets covered with needles, putting kids at risk of diseases usually only fags and needle users get.
They seem fine with giving out needles without enforcing the "exchange" part in most cases.
The flip side, though, is that many states have strict policies against selling needles to people without a prescription.

Also, virtually no kids ever randomly get stabbed with needles while walking in the street. It's just not something that really happens.

Needle exchanges are bad for the reasons Roosh stated. They enable the behavior. Strictly prohibiting addicts from getting needles doesn't seem like good policy either.

The reason abortion doesn't work as "harm reduction" (as Roosh stated) is because abortion is heavily advertised. Everybody is aware that it is an option. People who would have never dreamed of having abortions are now getting them.

I don't believe a whole lot of people are saying "Hey, look. There's a new needle exchange in town. I'd better start using heroin now!"
 

bucky

Ostrich
I'm sure these policies may have reduced some of the harm associated with drug use, but I doubt these policies actually decreased the amount of users.

I mean, what kind of drug user says to himself "Oh, it's legal now? Well, I guess that means I'd better stop."

I suppose it's possible that if drugs are legal it might somewhat lessen the bad boy appeal of being a rebel by using them. That said, it sure didn't seem to work out that way with marijuana when it was legalized for recreational use in my state. We rapidly got a "dispensary" on every block, sometimes two or three, and an open culture of "marijuana chic" rapidly evolved.

It's sad, but also advantageous to people like me who just hate drugs and alcohol and avoid them at all costs, because there are still loads of jobs here where they won't hire you if you test positive for weed. I generally struggle with facing the day-in-day-out grind of an office job, but I find my employer is happy to have me around doing my best largely because it's so difficult to find people who don't smoke dope around here.
 

ABeast

Robin
Harm reduction makes sense for heroin, addiction goes in cycles and the best way to break someone out of that cycle is to teach them self-respect. In countries that have legalized heroin with state doses they find people only use for a certain number of years and then wean themselves off. Of course that might be different in the US, but a big factor in addiction is the feeling of solidarity with other addicts forms a separate culture of enablement.
I used cocaine through IV for a few months and I must say that getting clean needles was the first step towards thinking about my health and eventually getting myself off it. That little bit of willpower to wait for a fresh needle was the first step towards recovery. The next step was going on Dead tour and being part of a society that wasn't totally nihilistic. But I was not able to give up drinking without faith being a part of my life.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...because there are still loads of jobs here where they won't hire you if you test positive for weed...
I'm not encouraging this, but those pre-hire drug tests are usually very easy to beat.

Now, if the job does random drug testing throughout your employment, then you actually have to be clean.
 
I'm sure these policies may have reduced some of the harm associated with drug use, but I doubt these policies actually decreased the amount of users.

I mean, what kind of drug user says to himself "Oh, it's legal now? Well, I guess that means I'd better stop."

In Portugal, if I remember correctly, it wasnt decriminalised exactly. If you were caught with some drugs, they would give you 3 options:
1. Nothing will happen
2. you can be charged
3. you can get a spot on a course treating you for addiction.

A surprising amount of people chose option 3.

What is overlooked when it comes to legalisation of narcotics, is cannabis use. Regulated cannabis use (i.e. not super strong breeds) is, whilst not unhealthy, relatively safe for users, in comparison to alcohol, or tobacco.
In addition, if you remove cannabis use, growing and distribution as a crime, you remove 50% of law enforcement investigation and those resources can be focused onto more serious crimes.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Harm reduction makes sense for heroin, addiction goes in cycles and the best way to break someone out of that cycle is to teach them self-respect. In countries that have legalized heroin with state doses they find people only use for a certain number of years and then wean themselves off. Of course that might be different in the US, but a big factor in addiction is the feeling of solidarity with other addicts forms a separate culture of enablement.
I used cocaine through IV for a few months and I must say that getting clean needles was the first step towards thinking about my health and eventually getting myself off it. That little bit of willpower to wait for a fresh needle was the first step towards recovery. The next step was going on Dead tour and being part of a society that wasn't totally nihilistic. But I was not able to give up drinking without faith being a part of my life.
Glad to hear you've been able to stay sober. As a former user, it's been a struggle for me as well.

I'm not sure it's so easy to just "wean yourself off" (especially with a drug like heroin). Cocaine doesn't cause any physical withdrawal symptoms, just psychological (depression, fatigue, etc.), but heroin withdrawal is extremely painful and lasts for sometimes over a week. And if you're a heavy user, you will probably not feel 100% for a month or longer after quitting.

I've seen methadone clinics (closest thing to "heroin prescription for addicts" in America) where the middle-aged addicts look really out of it, borderline-homeless, and look like they've been addicted for decades and have no intention of quitting.

In my opinion, the only way to truly quit opiates is to remove yourself completely from the situation, at least for the initial withdrawal period (be it by going to rehab, leaving town for a few weeks, or whatever). Will power isn't going to cut it when you're in extreme pain and you know relief is just a phone call away.
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
I live in Vancouver. It is essentially ground zero for North America's experiment with everything being legal. Its even at such a tipping point that criminality has become defacto legal. 20 years ago we put in a needle exchange to keep down on the hep c here, and now we are giving free drugs and housing so junkies can shoot up day and night on the taxpayer dime. Crime has gotten so bad here that people are talking gulags for them (this is the most liberal city in Canada). Its become a single voter issue for the coming election.

People talk about harm reduction without talking about the other three 'Pillars';


  • Harm reduction
  • Prevention
  • Treatment
  • Enforcement
The left wing government has focused entirely on the harm reduction, screaming for more money for treatment (without giving solutions) and flat out ignoring the prevention and enforcement. Prevention means tough conversations, which politicians avoid. Enforcement means siding with cops, which the left is also hesitant to do unless voters make it an issue.

If these are to work, the resources we are dumping into status quo need to be turned over to the prevention and enforcement for a while. Cops need to get the go ahead from our supreme court to go after the international criminal gangs for a start. Its gonna look mighty racist for a bit, but that has to happen. Junkies with free passes on theft and arson need to start going to prison. Treatment centers need to be one of our forest camps. If they are caught back in the problem zones - here it is the DTES - then they are instantly taken back.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
I live in Vancouver. It is essentially ground zero for North America's experiment with everything being legal. Its even at such a tipping point that criminality has become defacto legal. 20 years ago we put in a needle exchange to keep down on the hep c here, and now we are giving free drugs and housing so junkies can shoot up day and night on the taxpayer dime. Crime has gotten so bad here that people are talking gulags for them (this is the most liberal city in Canada). Its become a single voter issue for the coming election.

People talk about harm reduction without talking about the other three 'Pillars';


  • Harm reduction
  • Prevention
  • Treatment
  • Enforcement
The left wing government has focused entirely on the harm reduction, screaming for more money for treatment (without giving solutions) and flat out ignoring the prevention and enforcement. Prevention means tough conversations, which politicians avoid. Enforcement means siding with cops, which the left is also hesitant to do unless voters make it an issue.

If these are to work, the resources we are dumping into status quo need to be turned over to the prevention and enforcement for a while. Cops need to get the go ahead from our supreme court to go after the international criminal gangs for a start. Its gonna look mighty racist for a bit, but that has to happen. Junkies with free passes on theft and arson need to start going to prison. Treatment centers need to be one of our forest camps. If they are caught back in the problem zones - here it is the DTES - then they are instantly taken back.

I was expecting Laner or another west coast canadian to offer the vancouver harm reduction example.

Harm reduction is a rabbit hole, like a previous poster mentioned. It just keeps on expanding like other entitlements and the groups of people it skips also points out the hipocrisy.

Free needles for drug addicts...ok, why not free needles for diabetics? In areas that have a lot of indian/first nations prostitutes in northern ontario there are now people talking about "harm reduction for sex workers" like some sort of government paid for flop house/pimp pad for them to use for to serve their clients.

Harm reduction further embeds government in people's lives, which doesn't end well these days, especially when it is with other people's tax money and police. One can easily see "harm reduction" squads checking people's houses to make sure that there are no dangerous weapons and stealing the identities of addicts in exchange for drugs with results like "homeless people vote overwhelmingly, multiple times, for Trudeau/Biden"

If a church or charitable organization wants to do harm reduction, with private funds (not government grants) go for it. I can see "Harm reduction" as a way to be a point of contact with these people in the same way that soup kitchens are a point of contact for church ministries.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
"Harm" is one of those vague, censorious and self righteous words, like "hate," or "privilege," that acts as a Trojan Horse, allowing all sorts of hidden agendas to worm their way into policies and institutions under the guise of bettering society.

This is a planned strategy of subversion, and you have already lost when you accept their terminology. I have heard this term used in the context of shutting down free speech to prevent "actual" harm, meaning someone disagreeing with them.

They are pretending to speak in a general way to gain acceptance, only they have a specific and authoritarian definition they won't tell you about until much much later.

Look what they did with "equity."

Words like this should raise the hairs on the back of your neck when you hear them, and people should refuse to use them at all, and not be lulled into debating this policy or that one.

Getting you to accept their terms is what this battle is about.
 

Laner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
"Harm" is one of those vague, censorious and self righteous words, like "hate," or "privilege," that acts as a Trojan Horse, allowing all sorts of hidden agendas to worm their way into policies and institutions under the guise of bettering society.

This is a planned strategy of subversion, and you have already lost when you accept their terminology. I have heard this term used in the context of shutting down free speech to prevent "actual" harm, meaning someone disagreeing with them.

They are pretending to speak in a general way to gain acceptance, only they have a specific and authoritarian definition they won't tell you about until much much later.

Look what they did with "equity."

Words like this should raise the hairs on the back of your neck when you hear them, and people should refuse to use them at all, and not be lulled into debating this policy or that one.

Getting you to accept their terms is what this battle is about.

Great point on words being important.

My local candidate is running on 'Poverty Reduction'.

You mean access to jobs and freedom? No. Instead we are all victims, just some of us less so thanks to the guv.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
All of this stuff tends to remove the concept of free will from people. Like you wouldn't create a jobs program that people could apply to. Something that might give them the option to have skin in the game. No. Just poverty reduction across the board, equally applied to the scammer and the guy who is down on his luck.

No one makes choices in life and everyone is equally worthy.

And language becomes almost meaningless when you take away good vs. evil and replace it with harm vs. care.
 
Top