Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Lessons from the absence of harm reduction in American drug policy
  1. Peter Reuter*,
  2. Robert J MacCoun
  1. School of Public Affairs and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland, Van Munching Hall, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  2. Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California, 2607 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, California 94720-7320, USA
  1. Correspondence to: P Reuter PhD

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Even among its supporters, the American drug control strategy provides few grounds for enthusiasm. Despite many indications that the prevalence of drug use has declined over the past decade, in many ways the severity of the drug problem has remained fairly constant.1 Moreover, our current mix of policies is expensive, intrusive, and may actually contribute to drug related harm.2 Thus there is considerable interest - as documented by a steady stream of popular books, television programmes, and analytic and newspaper essays - in looking at a much wider array of drug control strategies, including approaches that go well beyond simply tinkering at the edges of existing programmes.

In this essay we shall provide a brief overview of one such alternative approach, the harm reduction paradigm.35 We shall discuss its influence in Western Europe and the barriers to its diffusion into American policy towards illicit drugs, and we shall offer a framework highlighting ways in which harm reduction might be integrated into the underlying logic of American drug control. Finally we tentatively suggest its relevance to smoking policy.

Drug policy and drug related harms

The American “drug problem” is in fact constituted by quite a variegated list of harms.6 The table provides a partial listing intended to illustrate the diversity.

Some harmful effects are undoubtedly a direct function of drug use itself, and particularly of dependence. But much of the harm is attributable to the criminal distribution of drugs. Certainly the violence in drug selling7 and the development of a large criminal economy8 are functions of the conditions that we have created around drug selling, rather than any psychopharmacological characteristics of the drugs per se. It is not implausible that a prohibition on chocolate might lead to markets with potential for violence; such an inference is even more plausible …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • * Dr Reuter delivered this paper at the conference.

  • The authors wish to thank Saul Shiftman for his extremely helpful suggestions.