Prior to taking this class, I was pretty unfamiliar with the harm reduction movement. We were all fortunate enough to be born after the AIDS crisis, so (I don’t know about all of you) the idea of harm reduction was never something that I was exposed to growing up. Therefore, I found the reading pretty interesting. I also liked how it did not only focus on the United States, but mentioned countries like the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada and even Australia. Unlike some of my classmates, there was not one specific model that caught my eye; they all stood out to me in different ways. For example, the Dutch model was certainly interesting because of the approach they decided to take with their drug users. There were “coffee shops” that sold drugs, while other parts of the city were sexually charged to say the least. I also found the UK model to be interesting because it literally allows drug users to be prescribed drugs on a maintenance basis. My question is, who decides this basis? How do they know where to draw the line? Also, do they really think giving the drug users more drugs is going to help? I understand the section in the reading when Marlatt says that in addition to many other things, giving them the drugs will prevent them from dropping out, but won’t this just continue to create a vicious cycle? Maybe I am not fully understanding the harm reduction movement, but I don’t see how it is that easy to just promote drug use.