Harper and harm reduction

There’s a key drug strategy called harm reduction. It’s a policy that uses safe injection sites and progressive strategies rather than outright prohibitions and jail-time to get people off of drugs.

With that intro, I’m going to repost a letter here from the Canadian Harm Reduction Network regarding Stephen Harper’s policies in drug enforcement.

I stole this from Ravings of a Mad Sceptic, who claims harm reduction is a proven science – although I’m not sure as I couldn’t find much strong literature in a brief google search, besides some testaments to it’s weakness as a strategy with tobacco. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t dismiss it as quickly as the Harper Tories have.

With that:

Greetings:

Many of you have, over the years, received e-mails from the Canadian Harm Reduction Network about events in your communities. Unfortunately we have been having serious website /mailing problems over the past month or so which we are really trying hard to correct. We will be up and running again in the near future, perhaps before you receive this e-mail.

But I cannot wait, and I am sending you this communication under my own name and from my personal e-mail address.

What I am writing about is our upcoming election.

As interesting and colourful as the America election is, there are very important issues at stake in Canada right now, and it is imperative to consider options and vote thoughtfully.

The Canadian Harm Reduction Network is, of course, outraged that Prime Minister Harper has removed harm reduction from Canada’s drug strategy – in spite of the fact that harm reduction has increasingly become the option of choice around the world … because it works.

By doing this, the Harper Conservatives have shown that they are embracing the same failed approach to the problems of drugs and drug distribution as that taken by the Americans. This approach has helped raise the incarceration rate in the USA to the highest in the world, cost billions, wasted lives, destroyed families and communities, and helped spawn an enormous “prison-industrial complex”. And yet, drug use and drug-relate crime in the USA have not diminished.

Like alcohol prohibition in the ’30s, the American “War on Drugs” has also been the catalyst for a huge increase in crime and corruption; this time, however, it is occurring internationally.

All necessary steps must be taken to ensure that Harper and his buddies do not foist the American approach on Canada, in the name of law and order. The consequences would be dire.

For a useful take on Harper on drugs, please see this YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYLV4ya8Dao)

I have strong concerns about many other Harper choices:
… their anti-crime proposals, which ape those in the USA, where they haven’t worked
… their disdain for solid measures to address environmental concerns, including but not limited to dealing effectively with global warming, following George W. Bush’s lead
… their no-worry/no-plan approach to the economic tumble which has taken place in the USA – and which knows no borders
… their contempt for traditional Canadian communitarian values
… their lack of clarity about our role in Afghanistan
… their scorn for the arts and for artists

These are just some of the issues with which I am preoccupied. And yes, I acknowledge a bias. It is a bias toward ensuring the health and well-being of Canada as a home and nation, and that its stability, humanity, commitment to peace, justice and equity, and sense of community within our borders and respected position in the world community are maintained and reinforced. These are things which I see being undermined by the Harper government.

Regardless where you stand politically, whether you agree with these concerns or not, I urge you to give consideration to the large issues in this election, and to vote. More than that, I urge you to vote thoughtfully. Do this for the sake of Canada.

Walter Cavalieri
MSc, MSW, RSW
Director
The Canadian Harm Reduction Network

FacebookTwitter

2 thoughts on “Harper and harm reduction”

  1. Cat says:

    Hi Ian – I just posted a comment to this one, but I’m not sure it got through, so here’s another! Sorry if two end up showing up. I didn’t realize you’d linked to my blog until now, but I thought I’d add my two cents regarding harm reduction. I work for a tobacco harm reduction group, and so I am reviewing literature about 8 hours a day, so I hope that allows me to comment here with a little intelligence. Harm reduction has had a bit of a difficult time in becoming accepted as a viable strategy for drug users and people who engage in dangerous behaviour (like unsafe sex). It is sometimes very controversial, because people (including the medical community) seem to see accepting harm reduction as accepting the dangerous drug or activity in question. There also may be a bit of, well, these people chose to indulge in these dangerous things, therefore they might deserve the consequences. These are hard attitudes to overcome, and they are prevalent even in the scientific community. For tobacco harm reduction these hurdles are even greater. There are a lot of anti-tobacco lobbyists, and a very strong sense of ill-will toward anything to do with tobacco. Since tobacco harm reduction does not deny the user their nicotine fix, it is seen as waging war on the anti-tobacco lobbyists’ “quit or die” approach. It is unfortunate, because only about 20% of smokers are able to successfully quit long-term. Harm reduction usually advocates using smokeless tobacco in the form of snus – a small packet of tobacco that is tucked under your upper lip – and this has been shown to be between 90-99% less harmful than cigarettes, yet still allows the user to get a satisfying amount of nicotine (you can check out studies with regard to snus if you look up “tobacco harm reduction” in the pubmed database at the U of A, if you’re interested). Right now we are even looking into electronic cigarettes. These have a nicotine cartridge in them that the smoker inhales, but they are smokeless, and thus eliminate the carcinogens associated with normal cigarettes (and the secondhand smoke, too).

    Anyways, I’ve yammered on enough for tonite – it certainly an interesting field though.

    Reply
  2. Cat says:

    Test

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Refresh Image

*