How 'Harm Reduction' Is Transforming Drug Policy
Andrew Tatarsky and Maia Szalavitz push individualist approaches to substance abuse as the drug war retreats.
HD DownloadWith more states and localities legalizing what the government still calls "illicit" drugs, how should we rethink criminal penalties and treatment for people with substance abuse problems? What policy and cultural frameworks will allow all of us to make better use decisions, reduce harm to ourselves and others, and make sure people who need help can get it?
At the latest Reason Speakeasy—a monthly live event in New York City with outspoken defenders of free speech and heterodox thinking—Nick Gillespie talked with Andrew Tatarsky, the founder of the Center for Optimal Living and the author of Harm Reduction Psychotherapy: A New Treatment for Drug and Alcohol Problems, and Maia Szalavitz, the author of Undoing Drugs: How Harm Reduction Is Changing the Future of Drugs and Addiction [Right?] and Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way of Understanding Addiction.
Tatarsky is widely recognized as one of the trailblazing pioneers behind the "harm reduction" movement, which seeks to minimize the negative consequences of drug use rather than eradicate it. Szalavitz's work (including her articles for Reason) has long explored the role of agency and compassion in understanding and treating addictive and self-destructive behavior, and she writes with the authority of a former heroin user.
Produced by Nick Gillespie; Edited by Adam Czarnecki and Justin Zuckerman; Sound editing by Ian Keyser
Photo Credits: Glen Stubbe/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Michael Ho Wai Lee / SOPA Images/Newscom; Edmund D. Fountain/ZUMApress/Newscom; BSIP/Newscom
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
“Harm reduction” sounds so eminently defensible, if not unassailable, no? Under what circumstances, outside of war in only some contexts, does anyone not want to reduce harm?
Of course, in practice this is essentially avoiding hard decisions and actions, and we see the effects stumbling around on Tik Tok videos in nearly all urban areas.