3 Year Birthday Invitation Wording

Sense versus Moralism: harm reduction policies

policies harm reduction have as its starting point the observation that many of the problems, both medical and social, drug-related, originate in the peculiar circumstances that the prohibition involved. This strategy prioritizes all actions aimed at minimizing the problems caused by drugs. It may seem that any policy can make it the priority, but it is not. The truth is that, at the opposite end of this approach, we find the policy calls for 'zero tolerance', which give priority to actions that aim to reduce the number of drug users. Proponents of these policies, without denying the health problems associated with drug use, are primarily concerned the moral dimension of the issue. For them, drugs
destructure personality, and social relationships and are therefore intrinsically evil. These fervent supporters of prohibition believe that only really attack the underlying problem measures that promote total abstinence from intoxicating illegal, and therefore are in harm reduction policies capitulation to drug use, and a first step towards political tolerance and liberalization. This opposition in the positions between supporters of one strategy or another radical, as stated by the Director of the Drug Monitoring Unit and AIDS in Liverpool: "The record of harm reduction are in the scientific medical model, with deeper roots in humanitarianism and libertarianism. Therefore, in contrast to the theory of abstinence, which is rooted more in punitive model of law enforcement and medical and religious paternalism. "

Take the example of needle exchange programs among drug users intravenously. Advocates of 'zero tolerance' are that these measures facilitate drug use and fear, therefore, to increase their consumption. For them it is immoral to do something more accessible to anyone who is, in itself, bad. They say it is hypocritical to defend the ban and at the same time more accessible to substances or paraphernalia for use. On the contrary, a supporter of harm reduction, these programs will minimize the problems of these people, who have much to do with the sharing of needles and syringes sterile. From their perspective, even if these programs could be a small increase in the number of users of these drugs, if the total number of people with problems arising from their use is reduced will have been worthwhile. The same goes for maintenance treatment of heroin addicts with methadone or even heroin. These measures are harm reduction policies questioned by those who think that, according to the above arguments, the state can not provide drugs, but, only, to promote total abstinence from them.