Prohibition and Harm Reduction

901 Words4 Pages
Prohibition and Harm Reduction Bryon Wilson BEHS 364 August 5th 2014 There have been two different strategies of society dealing with alcohol; harm reduction and zero tolerance. The method of harm reduction is focused primarily on reducing the negative effect of alcohol society and the people who drink. This is usually implemented by our government. They create policies and social programs that can treat those afflicted with alcoholism. There are several ways that this can be accomplished, such as limiting access, and taxing the substance to reduce demand. There are also social programs put in place that can help educate, rehabilitate and help recover. This a strategy compared to zero tolerance carries a unique ability to be tailored to suit individual needs as opposed to a one size fits all blanket policy. The harm reduction policy stands on a principle that alcoholism will not be completely eliminated so it would be more benefit to address the negative harms. For instance as alcoholism can be a major problem at work, some companies provide someone as an advocate and counsel. These counselors can work with them to modify behavior and reduce alcohol related incidents and further harm to their self on the job and in their personal life. That is something prohibition policies cannot do for an individual person. The proponents of zero tolerance see the alcoholic epidemic as a disease and therefore cannot allow continued usage if the person is to be treated and recover. It is not looked at as merely a social or health issue. To support this, the Annual Review states "addiction as a progressive disease with no cure—only abstinence is accepted as a means of stemming the course of the disease, and even a single occasion of drug use is equated with a relapse. These critics have denounced harm reduction as an “enabling” strategy that fosters the

More about Prohibition and Harm Reduction

Open Document