• Welcome Guest

    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
    Fun 💃 Threads Overdosed? Click
    D R U G   C U L T U R E

Does harm reduction appeal to the masses?

Bare_head

Bare_head

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
3,053
So i want to know if harm reduction is looked upon seriously by the masses?

If not. Why? And what can we do to make harm reduction appel to the general drug user?

Or is this a feature that comes with drug use?

Discuss
 
I think it is looked upon mostly favorably

Harm reduction is like the condom industry... nobody really talks about it openly but everyone agrees upon it.

Right?

the only people who hate harm reduction probably hate the people using the drugs in the first place and rings up bigotry and other bad things in my mind
 
Honestly, I don't think a majority of people "get" it. Many, many people think basic harm reduction things like needle exchanges are enabling users. You can break out all the charts, the info about disease transmission, and everything and they will still give you a glazed over dumb look.
 
deficiT said:
Honestly, I don't think a majority of people "get" it. Many, many people think basic harm reduction things like needle exchanges are enabling users. You can break out all the charts, the info about disease transmission, and everything and they will still give you a glazed over dumb look.
Click to expand...
because the majority of the world is still influenced by the "just say no" dogma

as if addiction was just as simple as that (and it is in their mind)

:(
 
deficiT said:
Honestly, I don't think a majority of people "get" it. Many, many people think basic harm reduction things like needle exchanges are enabling users. You can break out all the charts, the info about disease transmission, and everything and they will still give you a glazed over dumb look.
Click to expand...
People don’t really respond to getting information launched at them.

People are motivated, more often than not, by self-interest. So if you want to convince them to do something that they may not otherwise want to do, sometimes it’s helpful to persuade someone not by arguing that it’s the “right” thing to do, but by appealing to their self-interest or illustrating how it would benefit them personally

Granted, shifting someone’s perception toward supporting an HR perspective on this issue will involve presenting them with SOME info, I just think that some discretion should be used regarding how the info is presented and what the info is.

One advantage the HR side has is the fact that the criminalization of drugs and drug users is WIDELY seen as a failure in this country. NIMBY people, people who dislike and even scapegoat drugs/drug users are of course still around but “drug warriors” are very rare to come across. I actually think there’s lots of opportunity when it comes to spreading the word
 
Here in Australia, especially in NSW, large numbers of regular people accepted the advent of Harm Reduction during the AIDS epidemic as it became well known that injecting drug users were very likely to facilitate transmission of a then deadly disease into the general population.

However, for all these regular people Harm Reduction was good because it protected THEM. And then maybe because it protected the children and innocent partners of IV drug users. Not necessarily because they had any particular compassion for IV drug users.

The conservative state government has consistently refused to allow any kind of pill/drug testing either at Festivals (where numerous people die from drugs every year) or at labs. They seriously considered banning music festivals totally in response to drug deaths there. But they are not stupid and they know that tough-on-drugs is a vote-winner where it counts.

The media largely supports the view that drug-users are low-rent scumbags given to periodically terrorising the community or, at best, spoilt celebrities (usually football players and their wives and girlfriends) partying with coke and disrespecting their supporters and fans by doing so.

There really is no counter-narrative anywhere and harm reduction services (which ironically often rely primarily on government funding through the Department of Health) keep an extremely low profile to the point where they really only market themselves through word-of-mouth or street outreach to people in precarious housing or referred to them by the courts. There is not even a loud voice anywhere for legalising weed. No-one, not even the far-left and super-progressive Greens party will speak up to raise public awareness and change perceptions.
 
Perforated said:
Here in Australia, especially in NSW, large numbers of regular people accepted the advent of Harm Reduction during the AIDS epidemic as it became well known that injecting drug users were very likely to facilitate transmission of a then deadly disease into the general population.

However, for all these regular people Harm Reduction was good because it protected THEM. And then maybe because it protected the children and innocent partners of IV drug users. Not necessarily because they had any particular compassion for IV drug users.

The conservative state government has consistently refused to allow any kind of pill/drug testing either at Festivals (where numerous people die from drugs every year) or at labs. They seriously considered banning music festivals totally in response to drug deaths there. But they are not stupid and they know that tough-on-drugs is a vote-winner where it counts.

The media largely supports the view that drug-users are low-rent scumbags given to periodically terrorising the community or, at best, spoilt celebrities (usually football players and their wives and girlfriends) partying with coke and disrespecting their supporters and fans by doing so.

There really is no counter-narrative anywhere and harm reduction services (which ironically often rely primarily on government funding through the Department of Health) keep an extremely low profile to the point where they really only market themselves through word-of-mouth or street outreach to people in precarious housing or referred to them by the courts. There is not even a loud voice anywhere for legalising weed. No-one, not even the far-left and super-progressive Greens party will speak up to raise public awareness and change perceptions.
Click to expand...
Jeez. That's ridiculous. At least harm reduction is advocated for by the left, and somewhat less enthusiastically by libertarians in the US.
 
^ Wow, yeah the political climate on the drug issue in some places like the UK and Australia has surprised me in how conservative it is

In the USA it can go either way. In some communities there’s a conservative or reactionary climate, while in others there’s a progressive or permissive climate. In some ways it’s an issue that transcends politics though...there are illegal drug subcultures everywhere across this entire country, and marijuana legalization finds success in just about every state its put to a vote in. It’s gotten to the point where legalizing psychedelic hallucinogens, something which would have been virtually unthinkable (politically-speaking) for most of my life, is now looking like it'll be a reality sooner rather than later in the American West
 
Here in the pacific northwest of the USA, I believe HR is taken more seriously by the overall populace than it is elsewhere. Look at Oregon decriminalizing drugs and taking a different approach as an example. I wouldn't be surprised if Washington soon follows suit. (God, I hope so. I'm tired of the stress of worrying about getting caught. I don't hurt anyone, I don't steal, I don't do anything like that. I just like to get high and keep to myself.)

Then you have places like Utah, where I'm originally from. I doubt many people in the general populace care about harm reduction, as the majority of them view drug users as "worthless junkies". My dad found out I had started using again a few months ago and that was his initial reaction, "don't be a stupid junkie!" followed by a couple months where he refused to speak to me. And then there's the judicial system which comes down very hard on users, regardless of their DOC.
 
Thanks guys i figured as much..

Its a shame drug use is kind of dragged in with politics but this is where we are in 2021.

I still envisage one day all drugs to be regulated and we can all have access to safe drugs. Not in my life time.. but we are slowly making steps. Albeit very small compared to the steps i would like to see.

10 years ago i never thought the U.S would have legal weed but here we are
 
Bare_head said:
Thanks guys i figured as much..

Its a shame drug use is kind of dragged in with politics but this is where we are in 2021.

I still envisage one day all drugs to be regulated and we can all have access to safe drugs. Not in my life time.. but we are slowly making steps. Albeit very small compared to the steps i would like to see.

10 years ago i never thought the U.S would have legal weed but here we are
Click to expand...
It is definitely frustrating that drugs are so political. There is so much science to support decriminalization, safe use areas, exchanges, and a rehabilitative approach rather than a punitive one. But anything backed by science has to become political and based in emotion, not fact.

I really am hopeful that WA decriminalizes personal quantities of all drugs. We are pretty progressive here and the fact that OR did it is a good indicator that we probably won't be far behind.
 
Naloxone and Good Samaritan provisions seem like good ideas but then we get to distributing meth bulbs and needles and it's like hol up... so now society is actively helping people use?

Why is it that perverse incentives proliferate whenever the government gets involved in anything?
 
thujone said:
Naloxone and Good Samaritan provisions seem like good ideas but then we get to distributing meth bulbs and needles and it's like hol up... so now society is actively helping people use?

Why is it that perverse incentives proliferate whenever the government gets involved in anything?
Click to expand...
Most of the activists distributing harm reduction supplies aren't doing it through the government.

I mean are you ok with being bombarded with alcohol commercials on every tv screen in the country? Having safe supply option is hardly the same thing as incentivising something in the collective psyche as whats done with alcohol is.

Sorry if that last sentence didn't make much sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top