It was interesting to read Harm Reduction Around the World because one is able to see the different attitudes of varying countries towards drug related crimes. The fact that countries like Holland and the United Kingdom had mitigating polices made me wonder if there is an ulterior motive behind mass incarceration in the United States? If one logically reasons why the United States does not have a reductionist policy, no real answer surfaces. It just seems so logical to follow a reductionist approach rather than a intransigent stance.

Furthermore, as Albert mentioned in his post, America’s policy on handling methadone when compared to that of Amsterdam’s is much more stringent. It is definitely discouraging for an addict, in America, to somehow seek help because of the stigma. The whole methadone story reminded me of the controversial Needle Exchange Program. Interestingly, this program was first started in 1983 in Amsterdam. Just like, Amsterdam’s policy on mandatory condom use in sex work, this program helped curb HIV transmission rates among citizens,  On the other hand, the Needle Exchange Programs still remains controversial and in a sense tightly regulated in the United States. It just seems like there is an unfortunate pattern that is observable in the United States’ attitude towards drug regulation policies.

Don’t we want all drug addicts to recover and eventually become productive members of society? How can we expect a person to recover if his mean to recovery are impossibly difficult?