Last night, I was reading Dr. Thornton’s brilliant piece entitled: “Harm Reduction and Sin Taxes: Why Gary Becker is Wrong.”
It inspired me to further examine some philosophical issues that I have been contemplating for quite some time.
The purpose of my inquiries has to do with my efforts to deepen my understanding of harm reduction philosophy (which the program I work for follows) - in relation to my own philosophical beliefs (which, as you may have guessed, are far more “libertarian” than many of my colleagues ) concerning the issue of drug use in society. Please excuse my ignorance of economics (as mentioned, I come from a counseling background). I would be grateful for any feedback.
I currently work as an outreach clinician with participants who are in a homeless situation.
Advocates of harm reduction hold that members of society will continue to use substances no matter what (and have every right to) and asks how they can do so in the safest way possible (in an often extremely hostile pro-drug war society). Moreover, every human culture has consumed “drugs” and every single attempt at drug prohibition has failed.
Moreover, (according to my understanding of harm reduction), the focus is on what goals the individual wants to pursue. The individual is ultimately the true “expert” on his or her life - while the “clinician” can be a positive support along the way. Any “decent” therapist - I would hope - would embrace this philosophical approach. It has everything to do with respecting the right of the individual to make decisions to improve one’s life (And that might have nothing to do with a person’s actual substance use).
Many of our clients ask for help with finding employment or better housing. Most of our clients actively use illicit substances. We assist them with overcoming what they determine to be the main obstacles to a more fulfilling existence.
I think that some clinicians excessively emphasize the supposed destructive influence of substance use. In my opinion, the typical clinical labels regarding substance use that I keep hearing from trained professionals (many of whom believe in the legalization of all or most illicit substances) are:
- “Addiction” 2. “Clean/Sober” 3. “Disease”
I feel that we need to discard all of the labels thus mentioned (and many others). They are destructive - and only serve to back the mistaken claims of prohibitionists that all illicit substances are inherently “bad.” I believe that when speaking to others on this subject it is absolutely crucial to note that most use of substances (regardless of their “legal” status in our society) results in no harm whatsoever. I completely agree that any personal harm resulting from the use of drugs does not in any way justify laws prohibiting them.
The Issue:
The program I work for recently signed on to work with approximately 20 clients who are involved with the drug court. The harm reduction approach is also about trying to reduce the harm caused by criminal justice systems. I am all in favor of working to reduce the harm that is caused by systems that support drug prohibition.
Nevertheless, my questions are:
-
By taking on the court mandated cases, are we in essence supporting the various drug war systems? (Our program is certainly receiving direct funds from the government in exchange for our case management/counseling services. I, of course, realize that in these economically unstable times, social service programs are scrambling to find funding sources that will keep them afloat.).
-
How does a program reduce the harm of governmental institutions - that are ultimately pro prohibition (regardless of the degree of “progressiveness” in their strategies) - by partnering with them?
-
Are dedicated harm reduction oriented therapists - in a sense - compromising their principles by partnering (Meaning receiving money from pro prohibition institutions in exchange for services - which involves making regular reports to the drug court systems concerning the progress of cases) with these types of governmental programs? (After all, harm reduction anti-coercion in its ideals. The drug court system is certainly a “better” option compared to incarceration. Nevertheless, is it not still a system that is based on highly coercive methods?).
-
If the answer to question 3 is “yes” - then does that mean harm reduction philosophy needs a more well defined, consistent set of principles?
-
Can harm reduction philosophy be consistently combined with a “property rights first” rationale?
-
Should a clear distinction be made between “harm reduction therapy” (which, in addition to the traditional harm reduction practices of helping individuals learn how to use substances in as safe a way as possible - has to do with helping individuals become more empowered in terms of reaching meaningful goals in their lives) and “harm reduction policy” (which can vary depending on an organization’s goals/philosophy concerning social policy)?
BTW, I personally believe that since an individual has complete ownership of his or her body, neither the government, nor any other citizen, has any say as far as what an individual decides to consume.The difference is in the details on how social services should be funded. As a libertarian, I strongly believe in the idea of private charities (funded by private donations) - as opposed to government run social services (which are cruel and coercive). I
At any rate, sorry for the long post. Any feedback on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
I really appreciate your time.
Wolf