Talk:Harm reduction

This piece could use some mention of the Netherlands and about differing attitudes towards harm reduction around the world. Europe and, to some extent, Canada, seem more open to the concept but it is politically unacceptable where government policies are strongly influenced by religion or ideology (e.g. USA). --LeeHunter 18:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Criticism (again)

I've replaced this section, with some editing. I don't understand why we can have, say, an article like Pollution that points out that the major source of emissions is motor vehicle exhaust, but we can't have a few words as to some potential harm that can, ironically, be caused by harm reduction.

Almost nothing is a universal good or evil. Just about everything has a benefit, and a cost. Why pointing that simple fact out on this issue is such a controversial point, frankly, completely escapes me.

--Hrodulf 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Female Circumcision

I removed the bit about female circumsision as being a form of harm reduction, as female circumcision is widely considered to be an act of violence against someone else, and therefore doesn't fall within the realm of "harm reduction." Serotrance 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Methadone NPOV

I think at least half of the Methadone section (starting with: "There is an international literature") is in serious need of an NPOV cleanup, but I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to delete those parts.. so I'll leave it at this. The section goes from presenting factual and logical evidence to a large, rampant tirade on why Harm reduction is good/bad. If someone could help out, that would be great. Rhodekyll 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments

I don't quite understand some of the arguments and criticisms under the premise that this article is about harm reduction. Consider the heroin/methadone point. "Critics of methadone treatment claim that this is merely a substitution of one addiction for another, or that methadone treatment does not work". In this case, would not someone who intends to reduce the harm done agree with the critics, if it was true? Given that, the critics are also harm reductionists, aren't they?

As a harm reductionist, I would argue that the prohibitionists see all addiction as bad, therefore what appears to be simply stating the obvious becomes some kind of argument. I'm not saying it's sensical, just that that's their thing. Pope Guilty 05:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

use / abuse

As always, 'abuse' is a judgement made about a particular use. Definitions vary depending on whether you are a doctor, a lawyer, and American or a European. Let's stick to the facts. Guttlekraw 19:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything is a "judgement" about some kind of use. The question is, is it an accurate description? The drug abuse article is in the process of being expanded to include this type of information. You've been asked to stick to the "facts" for about a week now, but you refuse to cite sources for your edits. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary. You seem intent on pushing your pov to the exclusion of all others. Are you really saying that drug use in and of itself cannot cause harm, and that only 'drug abuse' can cause harm? If so that is a ridiculous proposition. Even the most ardently pro-drug agree that even responsible, moderate drug use can have negative effects. Guttlekraw 23:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In reality, the complete opposite is true. You've been asked to cite sources and stop changing cited text. Yesterday, you claimed you didn't have to, and you were corrected. The irony of course, is that by editing articles and cited quotes to say what you want them to say, instead of citing sources for your edits, it is you in fact, who is pushing a POV. Please read the policy pages and stop making Wikipedia a difficult place. You are starting to sound like a troll. --Viriditas | Talk 23:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cut the abuse and stick to the facts. It is simply not true that all drug use that leads to harm is abuse. It's simply not true. All tobacco use causes some harm, and yet we do not call all smoking drug abuse. What more do you want than that? Please read what you are reverting. Guttlekraw 01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges. Tobacco smoking is specifically not categorized as drug abuse since cigarettes are nicotine-delivery devices. One can, however, abuse nicotine, and I've provided a specific definition of such abuse to you on Talk:Sex education. Again, you continue to blame me for your own errors. --Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to read what you are reverting. The sentence talks about using harm reduction methodologies for drug USE. Only you want to use the term ABUSE. Take out you pov pushing and the sentence makes perfect sense. Low tar cigarettes are a harm reduction methodology applied to drug USE. Guttlekraw 04:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright guys, what's the context? I'm all about helping you guys in making a decision on this factor but I will not do so blindly; I need context first. Rhodekyll 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "abuse" anywhere in this article is inappropriate. Harm Reduction is based on value neutral language because it has nothing to do with either ideology, religion, values or morality. Harm Reduction uses ONLY value neutral language and "abuse" is a value judgement. Harm Reduction only recognises substance USE (not abuse)as it is inappropriate to project one's morals or values upon someone else. Harm Reduction is based on pragmatism and not ideology. The occurences of the word 'abuse' in this article (and in their context) should be changed to 'use'. 28 May 2006 Jeshmir.

The person who could settle this disagreemnt is Dr. Alan Marlatt, the psychologist who brought harm reduction to this country from the Netherlands. Simply ask him and post his reply here on the talk page. His contact information is at [1].Harmon Johnson 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

A criticism section is needed. --Viriditas | Talk 12:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Restrictive harm reduction?

The section on "restrictive harm reduction" seems somewhat misguided, and I suspect original research. Harm reduction is an alternative to prohibition. The template for harm reduction is "Let's stop trying to prohibit _______ and make it safer for people who choose to ______". Seat belt laws don't really fit this, as there is no serious campaign to prohibit these behaviors. Underage drinking laws don't really fit this, because they seek to prohibit behavior. I'm going to remove it unless someone can provide a link that it isn't original research. The Hokkaido Crow 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the critcisms from the proponents of prohibiting "victimless crimes" are just not true or dont really make sense. They usually say that by makign somethign legal more people will do i, or that legalizing it will encourage people to do it. I have taken numerous psychology classes and so I beleive this to be true; making something illegal only encouages people to do it more. If they made sour-patch kids illegal, I'm sure thier would be a huge surge in crimes relating to sour-patch kids and people would also do it a-lot more than they currently do.

I also don't believe that making something illegal deters anyone from doing it. The only time that it actually deters someone is when the person blindly follows the laws. The best example of this is speed limits that are overly cautious. I'm sure most intelligent people would agree with me on this.

I guess what I'm tryign to say in all of this is that I feel that the criticsms are not sound-minded and are not very intelligent even though they may sound logical at first. I find this a huge problem in many articles. But my biggest problem is that these initelligent arguements for things are being given equal weight as the arguements that not only make sense but have been proven.

Response to removal of section

I posted the 'restrictive harm reduction' section.

I'm still unclear on what "original research" entails. The only thing I can identify as original research from the removed section was the part about the store that only allowed two people under 20 in at a time; I actually saw such a store at one point. Everything else was just a response to the request for a criticism section by Viriditas.

I'm unsure of the bounds of OR. If I were to start saying things like "harm reduction has caused an X percentage change in such and such effect" obviously that is OR, because it is stating objective facts with no citation to an authority. But just to acknolwedge that in some situations there may be a cost to certain forms of harm reduction in terms of loss of freedom, this is original research? It's not stating a fact, it's analyzing existing facts. I don't see why the necessary restriction on original research that produces new facts must also restrict anyone on wikipedia from analysizing facts that does not require any actual research. As I've mentioned before when discussing this issue, there's no accuracy problem with an analysis of existing facts, if no new facts are claimed to exist.

In the past I've recommended changing the no original research rule to a 'no original thoughts' rule if this is in fact the intent of the rule, but nobody has ever commented, either positively or negatively, on this idea.

As for whether or not these restrictions meet the definition of harm reduction, if the material is in the incorrect place or needs to be on a new page it seems that it should be reclassified, rather than deleted. Maybe harm avoidance rather than harm reduction?

RudolfRadna 5:27 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR for guidelines on original research. :) - FrancisTyers 11:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did look at it and it said "idea," so that is covered, but I don't think having an idea counts as research. I think the rule would work better if it was "no original ideas or research" rather than "no original research."

That all being said, I'm unclear on where the line is drawn. For example, if I had written something like that in the libertarianism article, I doubt it would have been flagged, because that was an article *about* libertarianism. Is this really about OR, or is it really a matter of POV?

RudolfRadna 20:39 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to redo the criticism section. I couldn't find any good sources but based it on some common-sense ideas that I hardly think are new. If I can identify a good source I'll add it to the section, as anyone else may. Is it ok now? If it gets pulled down again, I'll put it on the talk page and maybe people can work on it there.

RudolfRadna 21:12 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Methadone NPOV redux

Hi Wiki readers -

I think this methadone article remains pro - biased. There is much evidence that methadone treatment does not produce less harm to the patients or society than the prior addiction modes. In my country (NZ) it kills addicts at 10x the rate of sole illicit opiate users. Users also experience higher rates of car crashes, more difficulty kicking the habit than with illicit use if they try. And on balance international studies show meth treatment mainly just reduces drug seeking stress and marginaly lower property crime. By increasing supply it increases the total pool of addicts.

I guess it creates employment for health pros and keeps afghanistan from profitting off heroin production. But as a health pro I'd say the treatment puts countries in breach of UN conventions which require psychoactives to only be used if they have proven scientific of medical benefits.

Meth is a dirty drug compared to heroin as it has lots of processing. It causes brain damage too and high car crash rates are reported in countries where legislation is less tthan ideal. And health insurers refuse to pay on it as it was long past disproven as a beneficial medical treatment. For some it may be an antidepressant but better less adictive options exist. It tends to reduces purposive living and general motivation.

The medical benefit of aids prevention for a limited number of not too bright clients has been argued as justification. Needle exchanges cater to this need nowadays. The greatet advocats of methdone are stakeholding professionals who are relics from the 60s and not up with research and IMO have clearly lost sight of the patients interests.

A truly informed patient with a clear head would think twice re consent to take methadone but few when they present are clearheaded or get informed or told the options eg naltroxen, antidepressants, full rehabilitation / abstinence, due to professionals being radical pro treatment advocats.

Methadone treatment can be a nightmare, a pessimistic (often final) solution going on the OD numbers in poorly run services - specially if you are misinformed that you have any chance really of getting "a cure" by it.

- A Kiwi Nurse who has Uk mental health reg!

It seems to me a lot of this article is POV. I'm not sure what to do with it though. --Galaxiaad 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Relevant Link?

"How to Inject Crystal Meth More Safely A guide on injecting crystal meth more safely written in easy to understand terms." Seems pseudo-relevant, and if we're going to list such links, then we might as well list how to "safetly" use all other drugs as well. I'm going to remove it. --Anthonysenn 06:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)