Review: A Drug Reformer Makes the Case for Harm Reduction
The Harm Reduction Gap argues for individual autonomy and meeting drug users where they're at.

Sheila Vakharia, who now works for the Drug Policy Alliance, began her career as a clinical social worker at a conventional addiction treatment center, where she soon became disenchanted. "Few of my clients attended treatment voluntarily, most did not think they had a drug problem, and most never completed the program," she recalls in her new book The Harm Reduction Gap, "because they could not maintain abstinence and comply with our tight structure," which included regular urine testing that she was required to supervise, much to her dismay.
Vakharia's next job, at a program that provided sterile injection equipment to drug users, opened her eyes to a different approach. "Harm reduction" rejects a black-and-white choice between abstinence and addiction, recognizing that different patterns of drug use entail different levels and kinds of risk. It accepts that people will continue to use psychoactive substances, as humans always have, and strives to minimize the negative consequences. Crucially, it acknowledges that efforts to prevent substance abuse can cause their own distinct types of harm, which it seeks to reduce as well.
In addition to needle exchanges, harm reduction includes mutual aid groups, accurate information about drug-related hazards, and distribution of test strips to detect fentanyl and naloxone to reverse opioid overdoses. The approach also includes overdose prevention centers, where people can use drugs in a safe, medically supervised setting, and policy changes such as decriminalization of drug use and, to address the unpredictable dangers of black-market products, legalization of the drug supply.
What unites these efforts, Vakharia argues, is a respect for individual autonomy and a willingness to meet people where they are, which does not necessarily correspond with the "drug-free society" of prohibitionists' dreams.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck harm reduction. Just repeal prohibition.
Sure, "just". But that would involve so upsetting widespread public understanding as to be impracticable. It's broadly accepted that if something is in some way bad for you and has no benefit but your enjoyment, it should be illegal. The only way marijuana prohibition was beaten was by the wedge perception that marijuana's good for you and that its prohibition was just a way for The Man to keep you down. Can you see that happening for narcotics?
The Harm Reduction Gap argues for individual autonomy and meeting drug users where they're at.
Apparently behind that preposition.
"Where da warrant at?"
"It's behind that preposition."
"What?"
"Learn some grammar, you can't end a sentence in a preposition!"
"Oh... well, where da warrant at, mufucker!"
Sheila Vakharia, who now works for the Drug Policy Alliance, began her career as a clinical social worker at a conventional addiction treatment center, where she soon became disenchanted.
Just so you know, “Harm reduction” IS the philosophy of disenchantment. It’s literally saying, “Nothing else worked, so how about I just stand by with some narcan and a pair of paddles and maybe an adrenaline shot, while you bounce along the bottom for the rest of your life.”
My homeboy, Douglas Murray on the drug crisis.
Cut at relevant time, "supervised consumption sites".
And sorry folks, you ain't talkin' your way out of this shit. Portland, Seattle, California all decriminalized the possession of drugs-- and that plan was explicitly a harm reduction plan. Overdoses skyrocketed. And no, you don't get to say, "Well they should have adopted my plan, plus a whole bunch of other stuff that I didn't mention as part of my plan as the time, then it would have worked."
No... NO! You said, "vote for this measure, and it will reduce overdoses." The people voted for the measure and it literally had the opposite effect.
"If the rule you followed brought you to this..."