Hysteria about drugs and harm minimisation. It's always the same old story
No matter how impressive the evidence of benefits, or how weak the evidence of serious side effects or how badly a strategy is needed, new harm reduction strategies are always greeted the same way: with relentless hostility.
Debates about harm reduction always follow the same pattern. Hysterical fears are confidently asserted as if proven beyond doubt while potential benefits, often based on considerable research and experience, are dismissed or ignored.
Many harm reduction interventions are eventually approved, usually too little and too late, and then turn out to be far more successful than had been hoped. Fierce opposition to the intervention usually continues long after evaluation has shown it to have great benefits and insignificant negatives. Then the opposition takes many years to slowly die away.
Harm reduction is usually associated with illicit drugs. But long before there was harm reduction for illicit drugs, there was already harm reduction for alcohol. Alcohol policy wonks in the 1970s used to speak of “making the world safe for drunks”. They knew that, like the poor, some hopelessly intoxicated people in public places would always be with us. The idea behind this slogan was, for example, separating drunken pedestrians from speeding traffic. Of course energetic efforts to reduce the frequency and severity of public drunkenness still continued.
(linky to rest of article)