Discuss The Links Between Harm Reduction And Risk Taking Behavior.

Traditions in society can be a useful tool to better shape to future. In this essay I will discuss the links between harm reduction and the increase of risk taking behavior. Harm reduction is defined as “policies, programs and practices that aim to reduce negative health, social and economic consequences that may ensue from the use of legal and illegal psychoactive drugs, without necessarily reducing drug use” (Stenekes, 2015). In this essay I will argue that harm reduction is a slippery slope that leads to the use of illicit substances and to the engagement in risky behavior. Harm reduction policies negatively impact individuals who struggle with three main areas: illegal substances, sex (both adolescent and the sex trade), and alcohol and
tobacco.

Traditional 12 step programs and abstinence models do not support the use of illegal substances and aim to help individuals with these struggles to become sober.
Harm reduction mentalities take the approach of reducing the risk associated with illegal substance use. This may include tactics like needle exchange programs and safe injection sites. Despite the fact that these tactics aim to reduce the risk of contracting diseases or overdosing, they still condone the use of illegal drugs. Legalizing some recreational drugs like marijuana also add to the slippery slope of harm reduction. By making certain drugs with less associated risk to them legal it can result in weakening policies against drugs like heroine or cocaine that are very dangerous. When injection sites enable drug users to inject illicit substances they are creating a subculture for violence and use. These sites also “simply add to the resources keeping people on drugs” (Youssef, 1996). Injection sites also draw addicts to specific locations; this can result in an increase in crime that is associated with drug use. The abundance of drug users in a concentrated area also has negative impacts on society, causing many people to be afraid to visit communities or areas of town where harm reduction exist. Harm reduction or minimization policies are not
effective in actually reducing the number of addicts that are found on the streets. In Australia, the “policy of harm minimization has induced widespread drug usage- 52% life time usage […] while the greatest increase in use has occurred in the 14-24 years age group” (Sullivan, 1999, p. 4). By implementing harm reduction policies children and youth are less likely to fear the consequences of illicit drug use, making them more apt to condone and engage in drug use. When government facilitates the consumption of illegal substances they prompt disrespect for the law, reflecting in increased numbers of teens doing drugs. All in all, “As the perceived risks go down for a particular drug, the greater the likelihood that the drug will be used” (Goldberg, 2009, p. 26). Harm reduction can also be a slippery slope for adolescents who engage in premature sexual behavior and for individuals who work in the sex trade.
If children and adolescents are educated about sex practices at too young of an age it can encourage them to partake in sexual activities prematurely. This can result in teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and negative mental health or low self-esteem. If students are educated about sex with abstinence based program it can reduce the amount of teen pregnancies that occur. For example, Project IMPPACT in New York City “focuses on the importance of abstaining from sexual intercourse” (Lieberman, Gray, Wier, Fiorention, & Maloney, 2000). This program discovered that “Lower rates of adolescent sexual activity are associated with having parents who demonstrate a combination of traditional attitudes toward sexual behavior and effective communication practices” (Lieberman et al, 2000). Harm reduction strategies are also dangerous for those who work in the sex trade. By regulating prostitution, younger people may be more likely to engage in the sex trade, making them more vulnerable. Making prostitution and soliciting in respect to the sex trade legal will also increase the number of people who engage in these acts creating a larger population of people at risk of being violated, injured and paid unfairly. By educating people, especially children that abstinence is the only 100% safe way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases they are being protected from potentially hazardous acts. Ultimately, presenting harm reduction strategies to adolescents and adults will increase the likelihood of participation. There is no guaranteed safe sex and engaging in these acts before one is ready or equipped to do so is a very dangerous activity. Alcohol and tobacco are also substances that harm reduction strategies target. Instead of eliminating the source of addiction harm reduction programs aim to reduce the amount of alcohol or tobacco consumed. For the average person consuming less alcohol than usual may be achievable, but for alcoholics having one less drink with a meal is a much more difficult task. Statistics Canada reported that 362,389 adolescents aged 12-19 had reported to “having 5 or more drinks on one occasion, at least once a month in the past twelve months” (Statistics Canada, 2014). This demonstrates that the laws we have now enable youth to consume much more alcohol than is considered appropriate. Introducing harm reduction strategies and educating youth about the negative effects of alcohol do not take enough measures to prevent alcohol abuse. Lowering drinking ages also increases use. For example, in Canada, Quebec’s legal drinking age is 18, Quebec reports that 15% of its population drinks heavily whereas, Ontario reports that only 12% of its population drinks heavily (Statistics Canada, 2014). One contributing factor to a higher rate of heavy drinkers may be attributed to a lower drinking age. Another unsuccessful harm reduction tactic is placing warnings and graphic images on cigarettes. These images do not deter people who are smokers from smoking, especially when addicted. The legalization of cigarettes also gives children an easily accessible source to gain access to cigarettes from. For example, “Parent’s smoking significantly contributes to increase the [child’s] intention to smoke” (Scalici, & Schulz, 2014, p. 3). All in all, both alcohol and tobacco addictions are best solved with an abstinence model. It is much easier to resist these temptations when they are not present. Upon reflection of the debate of the pros and cons of harm reduction in class, I have concluded that harm reduction is a bad approach to solve many issues of drug, sex and alcohol/tobacco use. After extensive research and partaking in the harm reduction debate in which the con side won it is evident that harm reduction is a slippery slope to condoning and enabling risky behavior. Despite the fact that the pro side pointed out some valuable argument for harm reduction, many statistics that they had gathered did not hold up to those against harm reduction. For example, after Australia introduced its harm reduction policy their drug use skyrocketed to 52% (Sullivan, 1999, p. 4). Introducing tactics to get people to reduce the risk of substance abuse also seemed null when 12 step models could achieve complete abstinence of the addiction. The reasons summarized above also were outlined in our debate in which harm reduction was the inferior choice to creating a society with less addiction. In conclusion, harm reduction policies lead to risky behavior and may cause adolescents to be more likely to engage in activities that they may not consider with abstinence models. In order to achieve a healthy society we should not condone the use of any illegal substances. Instead, using innovative ways to teach abstinence and aiding those with addictions to get sober will make our society a better place.