The first reason seems to stem from the argument that if harm were reduced for users the result would be an increase in the prevalence of drug use and, therefore, increased harm to society in terms of health care costs and violent crime. Those taking this position present as supporting evidence the fact that improved automobile safety features have led to increased speeding by drivers. Also, it has been suggested that because drug users are risk takers to begin with, they may increase use or risky behavior to compensate for the harm reduction assumptions that substance use is part of the human condition. The second reason stems from concerns about "sending the wrong message." If harm reduction were implemented, it might be interpreted as condoning drug use. The fear is that harm reduction would lead to new users and undermine efforts to engage current users in trying to achieve …show more content…
Studies have varied widely, putting the portion of the TANF recipient population with a substance abuse disorder at anywhere between four and thirty-seven percent, but the variation is due in part to the definitions, measurement methods, and sub-population included. (48% of those that answered my class poll said that they knew someone that received TANF and were abusers of a form of drug). Variations are also due to fears of disclosure and limited data; it is difficult to quantify how many TANF recipients have substance use problems. Rates are on a the lower end when studies looked at indicators of abuse of or dependence on illicit drugs, whereas they increase when they signify drug use and/or include alcohol abuse