The Office of National Drug Control Policy hates harm reduction. It's strange because they're supposed to be helping people with drug problems and yet all they ever do is defend the government's authority to punish and injure these very people. Not only that, but they actually go out of their way to oppose programs that prioritize saving lives over making drug arrests.
Predictably, therefore, ONDCP was quick to attack an effort to reduce drug overdoses in San Francisco by opening a safe injection site. As usual, their arguments aren't even related to the topic at hand:
ONDCP's childish protestations simply overflow with unintended irony:
But, as is often the case in the debate with ONDCP, the question is not what they understand, but rather what they really care about. To the Drug Czar, harm reduction is an "approach that accepts defeat." ONDCP only cares about reducing drug use. If drugs are used, then they feel "defeated," regardless of whether lives are saved.
For everyone else, "defeat" isn't defined solely by the frequency with which hits of dope are jacked into the veins of some bright-eyed youngster. Defeat is when that person's life is turned upside down, when they get sick, when they share a needle, when their lifeless body is found crumpled and cold on a park bench.
Preventing these things is the goal of the harm reduction community. It is an achievable goal, and those who stand in the way become apologists for disease, decay, and death.
Predictably, therefore, ONDCP was quick to attack an effort to reduce drug overdoses in San Francisco by opening a safe injection site. As usual, their arguments aren't even related to the topic at hand:
Proposed "Safe-Injection" Site in San Francisco Ignores Proven Solutions to Treating Drug AddictsIt shouldn't even be necessary to point out that the effectiveness of drug treatment has nothing to do with safe injection. The idea here is to keep at-risk users alive long enough to get them into treatment. These programs create a vital point of contact for connecting users to medical professionals and treatment options.
Drug treatment works. How do we know? Today, there are millions of millions of Americans successfully recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. These courageous Americans are living proof that effective drug treatment can save lives and reduce our national drug problem.
That's why it's so troubling to see this…
ONDCP's childish protestations simply overflow with unintended irony:
Indeed, no one proposes aiding and sustaining an alcoholic by providing a supervised site for alcohol use.Um, what? These supervised sites are called "bars," and no one ever gets alcohol poisoning at them. Alcohol poisoning is the hallmark of unsupervised parties where inexperienced underage drinkers consume surreptitiously. The circumstances under which drugs – be they alcohol or heroin – are consumed has everything to do with the relative safety of the user. What a simple concept that is.
But, as is often the case in the debate with ONDCP, the question is not what they understand, but rather what they really care about. To the Drug Czar, harm reduction is an "approach that accepts defeat." ONDCP only cares about reducing drug use. If drugs are used, then they feel "defeated," regardless of whether lives are saved.
For everyone else, "defeat" isn't defined solely by the frequency with which hits of dope are jacked into the veins of some bright-eyed youngster. Defeat is when that person's life is turned upside down, when they get sick, when they share a needle, when their lifeless body is found crumpled and cold on a park bench.
Preventing these things is the goal of the harm reduction community. It is an achievable goal, and those who stand in the way become apologists for disease, decay, and death.
Location:
United States
See map: Google Maps
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Great argument
I like your take on this, and I definitely agree that ONDCP has shown its ignorance time and time again in their public statements and those silly ads that are on tv...good read! Thanks!
Thanks
I agree with my arguments as well. If you like this, you might enjoy reading everything else on our site.
Harm Reduction Meets Harm Enhancement
If harm reduction results in less harm, or even no harm, then the drug war loses its best excuse for existing, which is protecting public health. Without the health issue, continuation of the drug war can only be justified on religious or moral grounds, which would not be legal justification enough to sustain a prohibition industry, at least not at the current level of intensity.
There are parallels. Several years ago researchers discovered that vitamin B-12 supplements prevent cirrhosis of the liver in heavy drinkers. Someone recommended that a tiny bit of B-12 be added to all liquor products. The idea was shot down by prohibitionists who said it would encourage people to drink. (I have news for them) In any event, there is no government agency currently banging the drums to recommend to drinkers that they consume a B-12 supplement with their diet.
Prohibitionists absolutely need drugs that present a bad example in order to discourage people from using drugs. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Walters and the ONDCP staff break out the Cuban cigars and a bottle of champagne at the news of every celebrity OD.
Giordano
Institutionalized ideology at the UN level
One thing is for sure: the ONDCP (and pretty much everyone else who champions prohibition) are ignoring the facts and acting really weird.
What most people don't know is that this idiocy is institutionalized at the highest level of all: the United Nations, specifically at the International Narcotics Control Board: http://www.incb.org . The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is all about ideology, and it even locks the participating countries on the approaches to solving the "drug problem".
The INCB has been out there explicitly saying that Safe Injection Sites (a.k.a. fixing rooms) are simply not a legitimate approach to fighting drugs. Making them is simply against the UN convention(s) and one is technically reneging on "our international obligations" when making such injection sites.
My own government in Denmark knows this full well and they have bluntly stated in their "Kampen mod narko" (War on Drugs) paper that certain harm reduction initiatives "undermine the very foundation of the war on drugs". Yes, the foundation indeed.
What this means In Real Life is that no matter how effective a policy or approach is at reducing harms, even if some approach could totally eliminate any and all heroin deaths, no matter if the injection sites could remove 90% of all sickness among addicts, then the approach would STILL be discouraged because the ideology is so utterly institutionalized in the UN conventions since 1961.
I have a hard time explaining just how cruel this is, but I sometimes like to illustrate this by taking an analogous example. Think what would have happened if we fought HIV/AIDS in the same way that we fight drugs. "But having HIV isn't a crime", some would say. To which I say: "neither is taking a drug by any reasonable definition of the word crime, but that didn't really stop us from punishing the non-criminals".
But really, try to run this thought experiment through on the War on HIV. It's pretty illuminating, and I suspect that some folks who are unaware of the ins and outs of prohibition may be able to understand the HIV analogy easier.
DEA
well ofcourse the DEA is fighting it with all they have , think about it if drugs was leagle what would they have to do ?? nothing so there fighting for there jobs regauardless of who it hurts
Wrong on that count as well
ONDCP: Indeed, no one proposes aiding and sustaining an alcoholic by providing a supervised site for alcohol use.
Actually..
-- daksya
ONDCP outdoes itself (not easy)
"Indeed, no one proposes aiding and sustaining an alcoholic by providing a supervised site for alcohol use". This comment is so dopey (sorry), it makes me think there's a pro-legalization mole working for ONDCP.
Post new comment