Then I heard some activists boasting that they've started a "Manitoba Harm Reduction Network." That's when I started getting more suspicious.
I thought to myself, "We were all in this together. Why would some folks want a separate network for harm reduction?"
As I talked with some of the members and proponents of this coalition, they made it clear that forming the network was one way of distinguishing themselves from those who "naively" obsessed over harm elimination rather than focusing on harm reduction.
They're advocating that we re-prioritize our collective efforts (staffing, programs and funding) into harm reduction. I'm wondering if it's purely coincidental that while government cuts treatment (harm elimination) they're talking more and more about harm reduction.
If pushed to be honest, many confess that they have given up on eliminating the harm. Some of them don't even want to discuss all the harms. And most of these activists are certain they want to avoid any appearance of judgment regarding the behaviour of addicts and criminals whose harms they seek to reduce.
But their rhetoric outstrips our reality. The philosophical propaganda of harm reduction is betrayed by lack of practical proof.
Do you see less harm to addicts and their victims? Do you see fewer prostitutes on the street? Have you noticed the decrease in violence and mayhem due to the "harm-reduced" version of crack addiction?
But these folks are unflinching in their assessment of their own importance. They insist that the only reason they haven't succeeded is that we haven't yet surrendered enough tax dollars, ideals and programs to their agenda of harm reduction. They dismiss or attack attempts to evaluate their philosophical claims of harm reduction.
Government is increasing distribution of crack kits to addicts who don't want to stop -- while decreasing the treatment options for those who want to stop.
Harm reduction activists won't bite the hand that feeds them. Their calls for adequate treatment are muted by their awareness of how they profit from government's perverted priorities.
Harm reduction makes the most sense when delivered by medical professionals. Not social activists, many of whom are philosophically opposed to some efforts at harm elimination.
Does it make more sense to fund more programs to tell addicts what they already know? Shouldn't we rather fund places that help them stop when they want to quit?
Harm-reduction activists won't advertise how "needle exchange" programs have deteriorated into "needle distribution" programs. The needles are still out there -- carelessly discarded and easily picked up or stepped on by kids and others. And how many of those addicts haven't contracted HIV or Hep C through some other aspect of their destructive lifestyle? Let's not exaggerate the harms reduced.
If the network is so concerned about reducing harm, why don't they introduce a condom exchange program? Folks could bring in a used condom (instead of dumping it out the window on the sidewalk) and, in exchange, receive two new condoms, a chocolate bar and a cigarette.
I've wondered previously why harm reduction activists don't distribute clean sniff rags for sniffers. The WRHA could publish lists of less harmful solvents and techniques by which they can be abused more "safely."
Government and agencies seem to be dedicating more and more resources to harm reduction rather than treatment.
In an article months ago, I mockingly postulated that perhaps unrepentant pedophiles should be given a condom and safe-rape kit before being released onto our streets.
I was shocked to learn that harm reduction activists in Cambodia actually admitted that they have counselled children as young as six in the art of servicing tourists.
They work to build relationships and encourage change. But in the end, the only practical help they offer is instruction in how to use a condom, and how to say "please wear a condom" in English, Japanese and German.
For children as young as six years old!
Some of these groups are so anxious to preserve their role in "harm reduction" that they refuse to jeopardize their relationships with brothel owners by getting them busted or ratting them out.
Donna Hughes, professor at the University of Rhode Island, provides a very appropriate analogy.
Imagine if 19th century abolitionists were willing to mute their protest against slavery in order to cultivate better relationships with slave traders. Imagine if they contented themselves with facilitating better conditions on slave ships.
I can just imagine members of historical "harm reduction networks" distributing bottles of sunscreen to alleviate sores and cancers caused by extreme exposure to ultra-violet rays. To get close enough to the slaves, they'd have to be sufficiently non-judgmental enough not to incur the wrath of the plantation owners.
Thank God for some folks who were willing to balance tolerance with sound judgment. Thank God for abolitionists who didn't content themselves with harm reduction.
As I survey the chaos, crime and agony caused by today's slavery to addiction and prostitution, I'd rather take my stand with the "naive" abolitionists than the "realistic" harm reductionists.
Harm reduction makes sense within a context of harm elimination. If you're not committed to the latter, you're not fully equipped for the former.
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca