Harm Reduction - Criticism

Criticism

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.

We oppose so-called 'harm reduction' strategies as endpoints that promote the false notion that there are safe or responsible ways to use drugs. That is, strategies in which the primary goal is to enable drug users to maintain addictive, destructive, and compulsive behavior by misleading users about some drug risks while ignoring others. —"Statement on so-called 'Harm Reduction' polices" made at a conference in Brussels, Belgium by signatories of the drug prohibitionist network International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy ...some organizations and local governments actively advocate the legalization of drugs and promote policies such as “harm reduction” that accept drug use and do not help drug users to become free from drug abuse. This undermines the international efforts to limit the supply of and demand for drugs. “Harm reduction” is too often another word for drug legalization or other inappropriate relaxation efforts, a policy approach that violates the UN Conventions. —"Declaration of the World Forum Against Drugs Stockholm Sweden, September 10, 2008

However, in Switzerland the incidence of heroin abuse has declined sharply since the introduction of heroin assisted treatment. As a study published in The Lancet concluded:

The harm reduction policy of Switzerland and its emphasis on the medicalisation of the heroin problem seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people." — Nordt, Carlos, and Rudolf Stohler, "Incidence of Heroin Use in Zurich, Switzerland: A Treatment Case Register Analysis,"

Critics furthermore reject harm reduction measures for allegedly trying to establish certain forms of drug use as acceptable in society:

Harm reduction has come to represent a philosophy in which illicit substance use is seen as largely unpreventable, and increasingly, as a feasible and acceptable lifestyle as long as use is not 'problematic'. At its root of this philosophy lay an acceptance of drug use into the mainstream of society. We reject this philosophy as fatalistic and faulty at its core. The idea that we can safely use drugs is a dangerous one. ... It is in fact an unsafe choice that brings great harm to individuals, families, and communities across. And it sends the wrong message to the most valuable yet vulnerable group of Canadians – our children and youth. —Drug Prevention Network of Canada Even though the world is against drug abuse, some organizations and local governments actively advocate the legalization of drugs and promote policies such as 'harm reduction' that accept drug use and do not help drug users to become free from drug abuse. This undermines the international efforts to limit the supply of and demand for drugs. 'Harm reduction' is too often another word for drug legalization or other inappropriate relaxation efforts, a policy approach that violates the UN Conventions.

There can be no other goal than a drug-free world.

We support the INCB statement that 'harm reduction' programmes are not substitutes for demand reduction programmes and should not be carried out at the expense of other important activities to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, such as drug prevention activities. — Declaration of World Forum Against Drugs, Stockholm, 2008, a conference with participation from 82 countries

However, these critics generally do not provide any hard evidence in support of their positions, which are primarily based on speculation and ideology rather than sound science. And since there has never existed a "drug-free world", their views on drug issues can be described as utopian as opposed to pragmatic.

Pope Benedict XVI has strongly criticised harm reduction policies with regards to HIV/AIDS, saying that "it is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". This position has been widely criticised for misrepresenting and oversimplifying the role of condoms in preventing infections. Also, there currently exists no hard evidence that providing condoms actually leads to an increase in HIV/AIDS prevalence.