The Drug Czar's blog has been very concerned about harm reduction lately. They've taken the counterintuitive position of opposing efforts to save the lives of drug users, which seems like a strange choice. Now I understand why: they think harm reduction is the opposite of what it actually is.

These so-called "harm reduction" strategies are poor public policy because their underlying philosophy involves giving up on those who can successfully recover from drug addiction. [PushingBack.com]

This is wrong for a very simple reason: you cannot recover from addiction if you're dead. Harm reduction programs are not an alternative to treatment, rather they go hand in hand. Harm reduction keeps people healthy and alive, thereby creating opportunities for them to subsequently recover from addiction.

We could do nothing. That would be "giving up." We could ask drug addicts to either quit or die. That would be "giving up." Instead, harm reduction activists have taken to the streets and attacked this problem directly. They've studied the leading causes of death among drug users and created programs to reduce those casualties. That's the opposite of giving up.

Just pretend for a moment that you're cruel and you want drug users to die in large numbers. How would you go about it? Well, you would begin by eliminating regulated distribution so that users are forced to obtain unsafe products from criminals on the street. You would reduce access to clean needles in order to spread AIDS. You would enforce criminal sanctions against users so that they're afraid to seek help. And you would lobby aggressively against anyone who's studied the problem and proposed programs to reduce AIDS and overdoses.

Now I'm not saying the Drug Czar wants to kill people. I'm just saying he presides over a policy that is perfectly tailored to achieve that outcome. And he dares to suggest that the people out there working with addicts and saving lives are the ones who've given up.

Apparently, American tourists aren’t the only ones enjoying Amsterdam's coffeeshops:

Police in Amsterdam are complaining over new rules banning them from smoking cannabis while off duty.

Officers in the Dutch capital, famous for its liberal drugs laws, have been told they must set the public "a good moral example". [Daily Mail]

Oh, whatever. There's nothing immoral about using marijuana and no reason to look to off-duty police for moral leadership.

…Dutch police union chairman Hans van Duijn said: "Many of our members are opposed to this.

"They are not paid for 24-hours a day. What they do in their free time is up to them."

It may seem strange to encounter law-enforcement officers agitating for the right to use marijuana, but their argument is perfectly legitimate. Marijuana is only intoxicating for a short period of time, after which one becomes sober again. There's simply no reason on earth why police shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy marijuana off-duty.

But if you live in a country where this is the biggest drug policy controversy of the day, you probably have more to be grateful for than to complain about.

I emailed Rep John Hall (D-NY) about his views on the drug provision of the Higher Education Act, and here is what he wrote back to me: Dear Mr. ___, Thank you for contacting me regarding drug convictions and federal financial aid. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. It is important to me as a freshman member of Congress to know what my constituents think on a wide range of issues as I study them and consider my vote.