CommentaryIf supply-oriented drug policy is broken, can harm reduction help fix it? Melding disciplines and methods to advance international drug-control policy☆
Introduction
Critics of the international drug-control regime contend that supply-oriented policy interventions are not just ineffective, but they also produce unintended adverse consequences. Research suggests their claims have merit. Paoli, Greenfield, and Reuter (2009), for example, find that lasting local reductions in opium production are possible, albeit rare; however, unless global demand shrinks, the production will shift elsewhere, with little or no effect on the aggregate supply of heroin and, potentially, at some economic, political, and social cost to exiting and newly emerging suppliers (see also, Dorn, 1992, Friesendorf, 2007, Nadelmann, 1989, Seccombe, 1995). Thailand, which all but ceased opium production with the help of a decades-long, politically and financially backed development strategy (Renard, 2001), might argue it is better off without opium production than with, even if that production migrated elsewhere. A country forced to abandon production rapidly, absent a viable development strategy, might feel differently as might the new source country. The net consequences of the international drug-control regime and related national, regional, and local drug-control policies are as yet unknown. In this paper, we consider whether “harm reduction,” a subject of intense and sometimes acrimonious debate in the demand-oriented drug-policy community, can provide a unifying foundation for supply-oriented policy and speak more directly to policy goals.
We ask: “If supply-oriented drug policy is broken, can harm reduction help fix it?” The naïve response is an emphatic “yes.” The term “harm reduction” holds intuitive and perhaps innate appeal. But harm reduction is not simply the reduction of harm – whatever that means – and, even if it were, the transfer of this term from demand-oriented to supply-oriented drug policy would present real conceptual and technical challenges. A less naïve response is “maybe.” Whether harm reduction can help fix supply-oriented drug policy will depend partly on the nature of the policy's brokenness, the strengths and weaknesses of a harm-based approach, and the specific approach in question.
Our evaluation unfolds as follows. First, we explore the paradoxes of supply-oriented drug policy that initially motivated our interest in harm reduction. Second, we consider the sources of discord in the debate on harm reduction. The literature suggests that conceptual and technical challenges, some more immediately relevant to supply-oriented policy than others, have contributed to the discord. Third, we examine a number of responses to those challenges. Various tools – taxonomies, models, and measurement strategies – have emerged from the literature to identify, categorize, and assess harms. We also examine tools from other disciplines. Each tool suggests a means to address one or more of the apparent challenges of a supply-oriented application. Fourth, armed with a better understanding of the brokenness of supply-oriented policy, the technical and conceptual challenges of harm reduction, and possible means of invoking a harm-based approach, we offer reasons for forging ahead.
We also outline a practical path forward. It harnesses the intuitive appeal of harm reduction, drawing insight from the aforementioned policy tools, and provides a foundation for evaluating the net consequences of supply-oriented drug policy and choosing amongst policy options. Ultimately, we find support for taking a harm-based approach and for reintroducing a clearer distinction between “supply-oriented policy” and “supply-reduction policy.”
Section snippets
Supply-oriented drug-policy paradoxes
As recently as the early 20th century, the terms “supply-oriented policy” and “supply-reduction policy” would have meant two different things. Supply-reduction measures constituted a subset of a larger package of supply-oriented drug controls; initially, these controls were more regulatory than prohibitive (see McAllister, 2000, Paoli et al., in press, Senate of Canada, 2002). In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, supply-oriented policy and supply-reduction policy have become virtually
Sources of discord
Hunt et al. (2003, n.p.) trace the debate on harm reduction to the late 1980s, citing concerns about the role of injecting drug use and needle sharing in the transmission of HIV/AIDS as having prompted the development of harm reduction policies and programmes. An anonymous reviewer of this paper described harm reduction as a “once radical stance for public health policy” that intended to be “contentious, righteous and resistant,” suggesting that the intensity of the debate derives naturally
Conceptual and technical responses
Faced with an array of conceptual and technical challenges, the drug-policy community has developed various tools to identify, categorize, and assess drug-related harms, especially as they pertain to drug use. Efforts to address supply-side and criminal harms, more generally, are less prevalent; however, the national-security community has developed a widely used risk-management process that warrants notice.
Should we forge ahead?
Our review of conceptual and technical challenges – and responses – leads us to consider whether harm reduction holds promise for supply-oriented drug policy. The answer depends on which “version” of harm reduction one invokes.
In developing a harm-based approach to supply-oriented drug policy, we propose an amalgam of MacCoun, Caulkins, and Reuter's “harm reduction” and Weatherburn's “harm minimization.” We would treat harm reduction as an objective—not as a set of policies, programmes, or
A practical path forward
The literature on harm reduction suggests at least three possible analytic approaches: the first focuses on the harms of activities; the second focuses on the harms of policies; the third considers both. Preferring the third, we propose a practical path forward (see Fig. 4) that marries the objective of harm reduction with elements of national security's risk assessment and supports systematic policy evaluation.
Step 1 combines the stages of the 5-step risk-management process that constitute
Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have identified a central paradox of contemporary supply-oriented drug policy, evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of a harm-based approach to policy-making and analysis, and proposed a practical path forward. We suggest a two-step process, consisting of both a harm and a policy assessment. Paoli et al. (2010) have begun to test and refine elements of this process in the Belgian context and we look forward to undertaking harm and policy assessments in “messier” venues, such
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank our many enthusiastic colleagues, including Robert MacCoun, Peter Reuter, and John Walsh for encouraging our efforts. In addition, we are especially grateful to five anonymous reviewers who generously offered their diverse and thought-provoking perspectives and to our editors for helping us to reconcile and respond to five sets of review comments – the final product is much stronger for their input. Lastly, we thank Andries Zoutendijk and Annie Cosgrove-Davies for their
References (70)
HIV, injecting drug use and harm reduction: A public health response
Addiction
(2007)- Caulkins, J. P. (2002). Law enforcement's role in a harm reduction regime. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 64. New South...
- et al.
Setting goals for drug policy: Harm reduction or use reduction?
Addiction
(1997) - et al.
Towards a harm reduction approach to enforcement
Safer Communities
(2009) - et al.
Disabusing cocaine: Pervasive myths and enduring realities of a globalized commodity
International Journal of Drug Policy
(2009) - et al.
Forests and drugs: Coca-driven deforestation in tropical biodiversity hotspots
Environmental Science and Technology
(2011) Clarifying options on drug policy
- Dorn, N., & van de Bunt, H. (2010). Bad thoughts: Towards an organised crime harm assessment and prioritisation system...
Harm reduction: What it is and is not
Drug and Alcohol Review
(1995)Peacekeepers among poppies: Afghanistan, illicit economies and intervention
International Peacekeeping
(2009)
U.S. foreign policy and the war on drugs: Displacing the cocaine and heroin industry
Risk management and performance in the Balkans Support Contract (MG-282-A)
What's in a name?
Addiction
Addressing drug problems: The case for harm minimization
Harm minimization: A basis for decision making in policy?
Risk Decision and Policy
Groundwork for a research programme on harm reduction in alcohol and drug treatment
Drug and Alcohol Review
The importance of clearly communicating the essence of harm reduction
International Journal of Drug Policy
Casting light on harm reduction: Introducing two instruments for analysing contradictions between harm reduction and ‘non-harm reduction’
International Journal of Drug Policy
The ethics of harm reduction
Substance Use and Misuse
The definition of harm reduction
Drug and Alcohol Review
Measuring the impact of fraud in the UK
British Journal of Criminology
Towards a psychology of harm reduction
American Psychologist
Harm reduction is a good label for a criterion all drug programs should meet
Addiction
Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times, and places
Measuring the effectiveness of organized crime control efforts
Responding to the challenge of diversity in opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan
Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century
The Australian federal police drug harm index: A new methodology for quantifying success in combating drug use
Australian Journal of Public Administration
Monograph no. 14: Working estimates of the social costs per gram and per user for cannabis, cocaine, opiates and amphetamines. DPMP Monograph Series
Drug prohibition in the United States: Costs, consequences, and alternatives
Science
The reduction of drug-related harm: A conceptual framework for theory, practice and research
Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis
The Lancet
Cited by (56)
Reliable drug war data: The Consolidated Counterdrug Database and cocaine interdiction in the “Transit Zone”
2020, International Journal of Drug PolicyCitation Excerpt :Their analyses suggest that if applied uniformly across spaces of transshipment, the lessening of law enforcement and military pressure could stabilize drug routes and associated cartel territories, dampening the otherwise perpetual spread of corruption and violence (see also Reuter, 2014; Shiner 2016). At the same time, interdiction budgets could be re-directed to supporting a host of non-militarized alternatives, both bilateral and multi-lateral, which analysts suggest can mitigate the harms associated with the drug trade in countries of transshipment (see Greenfield and Paoli, 2012; 2017). They include but are not limited to building states’ institutional capacities, particularly around community policing, criminal investigation, and (re)building functional justice systems (Chatwin, 2018; Isacson, 2015).
“One guy goes to jail, two people are ready to take his spot”: Perspectives on drug-induced homicide laws among incarcerated individuals
2019, International Journal of Drug PolicySecondary harm mitigation: A more humanitarian framework for international drug law enforcement
2017, International Journal of Drug PolicyCitation Excerpt :The answer depends in part on how the concept of harm is defined as this has implications for who is deemed to be deserving of humanitarian protections from the coercive effects of the ‘war on drugs’. This article deviates from previous attempts to explore the relationship between supply reduction and harm reduction (see Greenfield & Paoli, 2012) by considering their compatibility from a criminological perspective. It begins by considering how the harm reduction philosophy has come to influence domestic policing practices around the world.
Economic consequences of legal and illegal drugs: The case of social costs in Belgium
2017, International Journal of Drug PolicyResearch as due diligence: What can supply-side interventions accomplish and at what cost?
2017, International Journal of Drug PolicyImproving research on drug law enforcement
2017, International Journal of Drug Policy